Fr. Fenton has gotten me thinking. He raises an interesting question in the comments under a previous post: is it inappropriate for us to criticize what was the core Eucharistia of the Western Church for over 1,000 years? I have much sympathy with the argument that the Roman Canon needed "prunning" but not "excision" - but in *most* of Lutheranism (the Swedes a shining exception) all that remained of the canon was the Verba Christi - the Word of our Lord's Testament.
A number of questions present themselves:
1. Did Luther correctly understand the canon or did he read his own understanding of it into what the words actually were meant to convey? (I.e., was a catechetical solution possible without removing the canon wholesale?)
2. In what sense was a prayer that was never prayed aloud publicly in fact the West's Eucharistia - remember the importance attached in St. Justin to the people's "Amening" of said prayer. Can't "amen" what you don't know!
3. Has ANYONE ever heard a satisfactory explanation of St. Gregory the Great's claim (which figures so prominently in Lutheran polemics) that the Apostles' consecrated the host of oblation solely with the Our Father (and presumably the Verba?)? It can be found in his letter to Bishop John of Syracuse.
4. Did the overwhelming typical Lutheran practice of restricting the consecration to the Verba alone fundamentally alter the Sacrament? If so, how? I have some thoughts on this, and I would think that the big problem arises not with the Lutheran solution of the 16th century, but with the 20th century practice of picking up the elements and turning around to the people with them, or facing the people across the altar, instead of the nearly universal rubric of the early Lutheran rites that the consecration is said by the priest (as he was called in those days) *facing the altar.*
5. The Western Rite Orthodox do not receive the Canon without making adjustments, the two most noteable being the dropping of mention of the saints' merits and the addition of an epiclesis (borrowed from the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom); if recension is necessary for the prayer to be regarded as "Orthodox" by Orthodox, should the Lutherans be faulted for recognizing that the prayer had problems, even though their solution was more than a tad drastic. Is there a difference in kind between the Lutherans dropping the prayer and the Orthodox "fixing" it?
I'd be curious to hear thoughts about this topic (one dear to my heart) from all sides - yes, even those of you who think that the Preface got it wrong when it says that we should "at all times and in all places give thanks!" ; )
Just a few brief comments as we have discussed this in times past:
ReplyDelete1. Luther basically read the canon correctly, though later Luther might have been a bit more irenic in speaking of eucharistic vs. propitiatory sacrifice.
2. Luther was also concerned that the words of institution were God's Words to the faithful not our offering to God.
3. The issue of a freestanding altar, which I think is much more fitting to the nature of the Eucharist, is not a matter of changing the essence of the sacrament. However, in the earliest practice, the use of a table certainly points to the presbyter/bishop facing the people as Christ doubtlessly did at the first Lord's Supper. If the pastor is speaking in persona Christi then a freestanding altar fits much better.
4. Dr. Nagel points out in Lutheran Worship: History and Practice that was is most central about the supper is what is new, not what the institution had in common with passovers in general. There was much unique in the institution - so in the celebration, the Verba take center focus and prominence - so the verba are deutlich und klar.
5. As much as it is "truly good right and salutary" to give thanks at all times and places, it is also salutation to not speak when we are spoken to and to distinguish between our speaking and God's speaking to us. To be sure our speaking ought to be based upon GOd's speaking, but they are not the same thing. Kenneth Korby is helpful on this in his essay on Christian Prayer in the book edited by John Gallen.
6. Lutherans do not restrict the consecration to the Verba alone in the sense that nothing else matters. However a humanly instituted epiklesis or eucharistic prayer incorporating the verba is not the dominically mandated means or instrument. The institution calls for thanksgiving. But the tense of the verbs in the institution seem to indicate to me that the thanksgiving was completed and was therefore distinct from the instituting words of our Lord (when He *had* given thanks...).
7. Addai and Mari are also another case which have a distinct prayer of thanksgiving and the presumed words of institution. (see David Power in New Eucharistic Prayers ed. Frank Senn)
8. Besides recent distortions of the German Mass or liturgies "based on the German Mass" - it is a distortion of the Eucharistic liturgy to skip any thanksgiving.
9. We need to clearly distinguish between what is dominically mandated and what is not. The certainty of the Lord's Supper is based on what is dominical - other things may wax and wane in the preparation for and extolling of the gifts.
10. Both Chemnitz and Friedrich Lochner also cite the reference to Gregory the Great in the positive.
11. In his manual on Lutheran Book of Worship, Philip Pfatteicher acknowledges that the typical Lutheran liturgical form is most clearly reflective of Formula VII's understanding of the consecration.
"the nearly universal rubric of the early Lutheran rites that the consecration is said by the priest (as he was called in those days) *facing the altar.*"
ReplyDeleteJust a side note, here in the Lutheran Church of Finland, the priest (they are still called priests) faces the altar when he says consecraction.
Going to be away for a few days but one comment.
ReplyDeleteI have always thought the insistence that prayer is not proclamation to be a bit forced. Hymns are prayers _and_ proclamation as are collects and etc.
So on this one point I do not think the verba cease to be proclamation or "gospel" when they are placed in the context of a prayer.
There are many other issues of course.
Alms
Fr. Frahm,
ReplyDeleteI'll not repeat our conversations of the past. We just disagree on this topic. My own thoughts are to be found in the essay in *Through the Church the Song Goes On* for any who are interested. If you've got a copy of *The Spirit of the Liturgy* by now Pope Benedict, you might want to check out his words about the table. In essence, DaVinci got THAT right and Luther got it wrong - about who was facing whom at an oriental meal.
My unknown friend from Finland, thanks ever so much for chiming in. I knew that the title priest remained in Sweden, but was unaware of its continued use in Finland. Thanks for sharing that! And what a delight to hear that facing the altar for the consecration - the long-standing Lutheran practice, and long-standing Western practice - still is going strong there! Too cool!
Fr. Alms, precisely! So often "it is either this or that" misses the boat. If St. Paul can even call the preaching of the Gospel a "sacrifice" then we should recognize that categories can overlap. The later Lutheran dogmaticians certainly recognized the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist - and that it in no way impaired or jeopardized its sacramental nature, which is and remains primary. Also, in hymnody, my favorite example is Franzmann's *Thy Strong Word* - a hymn addressed to God - in which beautiful Gospel is proclaimed:
"Thy strong Word bespeaks us righteous / bright with thine own holiness / glorious now, we press toward glory / and our tongues our hopes confess."
Pr. Weedon -
ReplyDeleteOn the Western Rite Orthodox revision of the Canon Missae, some explanation is in order.
(1) The idea that the epiclesis is the "consecratory moment" in the Eucharistic Prayer is a rather late idea in Orthodoxy, a polemical reaction against Rome's emphasis on the Words of Institution. The epiclesis was added by the Western Rite Orthodox, not to make the Canon "valid" but simply to avoid controversy with those in Orthodoxy who still hold to the "consecratory moment" idea. This explanation comes directly from the Vicar General of the Western Rite in the Antiochian Archdiocese.
(2) I have commented on the issue of the "merits" of the Saints at my (now defunct) blog. I will only add to my comments that many in the Western Rite Vicariate are now coming to the conclusion that the ancient prayers mentioning "merits" of the Saints, since they predate "supererogation" and "indulgences", need no censoring.
http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2006/03/merits-of-saints.html
Dear Ben,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the clarifications! Indeed, the language of "merit" is early in the Western prayers - not just the canon. I've often wondered about the addition of the epiclesis, especially given the interpretation of the canon put forward by St. Nicholas Cabasilas and his notion of an "ascending" epiclesis.
Pax!
Pastor Weedon,
ReplyDeleteWas the Mass (and Canon) that Luther used before the Reformation the same as the Tridentine Mass. I know that Tridentine means it came from the Council of Trent, but I have read that this Mass really goes back to the time of St. Gregory or even earlier.
Thanks,
Eric
Eric,
ReplyDeleteYes, largely so. You can see that by the little treatise Luther wrote on "The Secret Mass" in which he offers his criticism of the text.
Subdn. Benjamin said much of what I wanted to. I'd add: the Roman canon during the time Byzantine Orthodoxy unquestioningly accepted its validity had no descending epiclesis. According to St. Nicholas Cabasilas's long-post-Schism Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, another portion of the canon served the same purpose.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteThis is my first visit to your blog, which was recommended to me by my friend Chris Jones some time ago.
The idea that St. Gregory the Great, in his letter to Bp. John of Syracuse, is stating that the spostles consecrated the Eucharist using only the Lord's Prayer, seems to be a misreading of his dense Latin. See, for instance, the essay on the Position of the Lord's Prayer in the Roman Mass in *Further Essays in Early Roman Liturgy* by G. G. Willis (London, 1968: Alcuin Club) or Willis's posthumous *A History of Early Roman Liturgy* ed. Michael Moreton (1994). What Gregory seems (on this view) to be saying is that while the apostles consecrated by "the Prayer" (anaphora) alone, later on the Secret was added over the elements of bread and wine, so it is only fitting that the Lord's (Own) Prayer should be said over the elements now that they have become Christ's Body and Blood.
Luther shared the views of earlier thinkers over what Gregory meant in the letter, and I suspect he extended the principle to other ritual acts, which is probably why, until modern liturgical revisions, the key moment in the ordination of priests and the consecration of bishops in the Scandinavian churches is the imposition of hands accompanied by the Lord's Prayer.
Mr. (Fr.?) Tighe,
ReplyDeleteThanks for chiming in. I am not sure that the Latin supports the readings you have suggested. Here it is (copied from the New Advent site - it's in the footnotes), with the editors comments:
8 This whole passage in the original is;-"Orationem vero Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit or ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblatlonis hostiam consecarent Et valde mihi inconveniens visum est ut precem quam scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus, et ipsam traditionem (Qy. for orationnem?) quam Redemptor noster composuit super ejus corpus et sanguinem non diceremus."...
As to what is said by S. Gregory of the custom of the Apostles, the most Obvious meaning of which is, that they used no prayer of consecratIon but the Lord's Prayer, we have no means of ascertaining whence be derived this tradition, or what the value of it might be. It does not, of course, imply that the words of institution were not said over the elements by the Apostles, but only that they used no other prayer for the purpose of consecration. Ways have been suggested, though not satisfactory, for evading the apparent meaning of the statement.
Weedon
My copy of the Willis book(s) are at my mother's in Massachusetts, but I gave a spare copy to Chris Jones, so perhaps he might copy that (rather short) essay in it. Willis discusses at some length the passage and gives a grammatical analysis of the Latin. I could not trust myself to get the whole of his argument exact fromm memory, but part of it is that the "precem quam scholasticus composuerat" (and which is "super oblationem" -- that is, over the unconsecrated bread and wine) is the Secret, while "ipsam orationem quam Redemptor noster ..." (etc.) and which is "super eius corpus et sanguinem" (i.e., over the [now consecrated] Body and Blood) is the Lord's Prayer. Part of the question concerns how "orationem" and "hostiam" in the first sentence relate to one another, and to "orationis." It is the more peculiar still, since it may be the case that the Lord's Prayer didn't come into the Roman Rite until the time of Gregory the Great (that's Dix's argument' Willis thinks that Gregory moved it back from after the Fraction so as immediately to follow the Canon, just as the Secret immediately preceded it).
ReplyDeleteI'm "Mr." not "Fr."
Thanks. What never made sense to me was that Gregory would presume to know HOW the apostles consecrated the host of oblation. On what basis would he even begin to speak on this? I would very much like to hear Willis' argument, and next time I'm in St. Louis, I'll try to pick up the work and read it. I am VERY curious because I've not seen the passage more than shrugged at in the past. Thanks so much for bringing up a word that actually discusses the grammar of the section. "Scholasticus" has puzzled me for years!
ReplyDeletePax!
I'm "Mr." not "Fr."
ReplyDeleteBill is being too modest. While in the ecclesiastical order he is indeed a layman (an Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome), he is hardly a mere "mister". Bill is a professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania. So while we may not call him "Fr Tighe", "Prof Tighe" or "Dr Tighe" would be quite appropriate.
That said, per Bill's request here is what I gleaned from a quick re-reading of G.G. Willis's essay St Gregory the Great and the Lord's Prayer in the Roman Mass:
Willis does take the position which Bill ascribes to him, though in the essay in Further Essays ... he doesn't do the detailed grammatical analysis that Bill recalls (perhaps that analysis is in his History of Early Roman Liturgy, to which I have no access). He gives a translation of the Latin which sets forth his reading of it, and gives his interpretation of a key phrase in a footnote.
Herewith a couple of excerpts from Willis:
The words of St Gregory to John, bishop of Syracuse, in his famous letter of October 598, concerning the position of the Pater Noster in the Roman Mass are not by any means clear and have been interpreted in various ways by different scholars both in antiquity and in modern times. Did he introduce the Lord's Prayer for the first time into the Roman Mass, or was it there before his day, but in a different position? This seems to be the principal question to which an answer is desired. But his words to John raise other problems, for example: Did St Gregory think that the use of the Apostles was to consecrate the Eucharist by reciting over bread and wine the Lord's Prayer and thing else? Or did he think that they consecrated by the recital of the Canon? Or by saying the prayer which Roman liturgists of his day called the Oratio super oblationem and later liturgists by the Gallican term Secreta? And was he right in his supposition, for in reality he obviously knew no better than we do what text the Apostles actually used when they consecrated the Body and Blood of Christ?
... St Gregory says:
"We say the Lord's Prayer immediately after the Canon because it was the custom of the Apostles to consecrate the Host to the accompaniment of the Prayer of Oblation alone [i.e., with the Canon without any Pater Noster], and it seemed to me very unfitting that we should say over the oblation the Canon of the Mass [prex] which was composed by a scholar, and that we should not say over the Saviour's Body and Blood the Prayer which he composed and handed down."
(Orationem uero Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solam modo orationem oblationis hostiam consecarent, et ualde mihi inconueniens uisum est ut precem quam scolasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus, et ipsam traditionem quam redemptor noster composuit super eius corpus et sanguinem non diceremus.)
The difficulty about the interpretation of these words is that St Gregory does not say whether he introduced the Pater for the first time into the Roman Mass, or whether it was there before his time and he move it to the position at the end of the Canon which it has ever since occupied; or, if so, where it was before he moved it. He says that the purpose of using it immedieately after the Canon is that it may be recited over the Saviour's Body and Blood. Presumably therefore before his day the Pater had either not been said at all at Mass in Rome, or else it had been said at such a point that it was not said over the consecrated elements lying on the altar.
The key footnote is where Willis glosses "to the accompaniment of the Prayer of Oblation alone" (ad ipsam solam modo orationem oblationis) as "i.e., with the Canon without any Pater Noster". What Willis says makes sense to me; in context I can't see that the "orationem oblationis" refers to the Lord's Prayer with no other anaphora. It makes much more sense that it refers to an anaphora without the Lord's Prayer.
Willis (1914-1982) published two books of essays, *Essays in Early Roman Liturgy* (19640 and *Further Essays in Early Roman Liturgy* (1968). The first has, among other items, an intersting essay on the connection of the prayers of Roman Canon, while the second has, in addition to the brief "St. Gregory the Great and the Lord's Prayer in the Roman Mass" a wonderful essay on the variable prayers of the Roman Mass in which the origins and nature of the Collect, Secret and Postcommunion prayers are treated in great detail.
ReplyDeleteTo rearrange the words of the Latin in the citation above, is the phrase "... quia mos apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo oblationem orationis hostiam consecrarent" to be read as ".. ut ad ipsam oblationem orationis solummodo hostiam consecrarent" or "... ut ad ipsam oblationem solummodo orationis hostiam consecrarent." The first would give the sense of "... because it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the Host to the accompaniment of the prayer of oblation (i.e., the Prex or Canon) only"; the second "... because it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the victim (Host) of the oblation to the accompaniment of that prayer (i.e., the Lord's Prayer) only."
ReplyDeleteDr. Teighe,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the material. I have been über busy, as my son likes to say, (just coming off two week's vacation) so I haven't had time to work through it, but I sure will. I appreciate it very much!
Oh, and by the way, the Church of Sweden used only the Verba in its eucharistic rite from 1571 to 1578 and from 1593 to 1942; between 1529 and 1571 the Roman Mass could legally be celebrated by priests so inclined, although its use was strongly discouraged from 1544 onwards (and such suggested "Evangelical" rites as were produced during this period in Sweden had only the Verba also).
ReplyDeleteAre you certain that is correct about Sweden. It was my understanding that the Petri form was used from after the mess with the Red Book and up until the 1940's. I thought Yelverton documented that in his "The Mass in Sweden". It wasn't the Roman canon, but it contained the Verba within the Preface.
ReplyDeleteI think not -- tho' I don't have my reference books here. You are thinking of Olaus Petri's "Swedish Mass" of 1531, which is as you describe. However, Laurentius Petri produced a number of revisions subsequently, the final one of which was embodied in the 1571 Church Order. These had a different order: Dialogue + Preface + Sanctus + Verba + Lord's Prayer + Agnus Dei (in one of these the Lord's Prayer may have come after the Sanctus and before the Verba -- cf. Yelverton's *An Archbishop of the Reformation* which gives one of these versions as an appendix). The Red Book was in use between 1578 and 1593. Afterwards the CofS reverted to 1571 (minus the elevation during the Verba [which btw remained in the Norwegian Church Order till 1814 and in the Schleswig-Holstein CO to 1797, the last Lutheran COs to drop it]), altered in a vaguely "Reformed" manner in ca. 1606, restored later to 1571, castrated in 1814 by a conbination of omissions and Englightenment and Pietistic additions, restored again in 1893 (this is the version that Yelverton translated in his *The Swedish Rite* of 1917) and finally a Eucharistic Prayer of sorts (which has been in Missouri orders since the 1960s, I believe) added in 1942 -- in which year the CofS began to ordain deacons for the first time ince the 1540s. The 1986 Church Order had four EPs which hint at "oblation" but don't actually make one; and since that date the high-church people have produced their own emendations, most of which contain consecratory epicleseis and some sort of oblation (which the authorities allow to be used unofficially, just as they likewise allow the most grotesque modernist/feminist/inclusivist "emendations" to be used on the same basis.
ReplyDeleteThat is really surprising to me, given the portion of the service that Gierz reproduces in "Hammer of God" - I'm thinking about on pages 95-97 where he clearly cites the Petri Preface joined to the Verba as the prayer that was being used in the Church - and the setting is, what, early 19th century?
ReplyDelete"It is truly meet, right, and salutary that we should at all times and in all places give thanks to thee, O Lord, holy Father, almighty, everlasting God, through Jesus Christ our Lord..."
"And especially for this mercy which Thou hast shown us, who because of our sins were in such misery that nothing remained for us but condemnatioin and eternal death..."
"And no creature in heaven or earth could save us..."
"Thou didst give Thine only begotten Son Jesus Christ, who is of the same divine nature as Thyself to be made man for our sake, and didst lay our sins upon Him and let Him suffer death..."
"As He hath conquered death, is risen, again, and liveth forevermore, even so all they who trust in Him shall through Him be victorious over sin and death and inherit eternal life."
"Now he had come to the Words of Institution..."
"Then followed the singing of the jubilant Sanctus. Savonius chanted the Lord's Prayer, after which the dean read the Exhortation..."
It's Petri 1531. And it's what Archbishop Gierz wrote that they were praying in the 19th century. Help!?! I'm confused!!!!
Well, the only other thing that I have to hand here in my office is *An Archbishop of the Reformation, Laurentius Petri Nericius, Archbishop of Uppsala: A Study of His Liturgical Projects* by Eric E. Yelverton (London, 1958: The Epworth Press). The section dealing with the Missal (pp. 21-48) states that Laurentius Petri produced revisions of his brother Olaus' 1531 "Swedish Mass" (which Olaus himself revised slightly in 1535 and 1537) in 1541, 1548, 1557 and 1568, and that it was in the last of these revisions that he altered the order to Dialogue & Preface + Sanctus + Verba + Benedictus qui venit + Lord's Prayer + Agnus Dei -- then communion; and that this was the order that was followed in the 1571 Church Order. On page 23 there is a reference to the Swedish rite of 1894 which Yelverton describes as "almost identical with that of 1531" but with no explanation of the "almost." At home I have a copy of *Svenskt Gudstjanst Liv* by Edvard Rodhe and when I go back I'll look at it to see if it offers any greater clarity.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, did you get the e-mail I sent to you yesterday?
The plot thickens. I've just been paging through the relevant parts (pp. 146-165) of *Svenskt Gudstjanstliv: Historisk Belysning Av Den Svenska Kyrkohandboken* by Edvard Rodhe (Stockholm, 1923). My Swedish is not great, and the way the constituent parts of the service are joined together and presented in the book is not very helpful, but what he seems to be saying is that from 1531 to 1894 the order was Dialogue & Preface + Verba + Sanctus & Benedictus + Lord's Prayer + Pax Domini + Agnus Dei -- and then communion; but that in 1894 the Lord's Prayer was moved back so as to come between the Verba and the Sanctus & Benedictus. There was a further revision in 1917, but it does not appear to have affected the Eucharist, so it was not (as it seems) until 1942 that further changes were made.
ReplyDeleteAlso, so far as I can make out the Verba was (?were) "embedded" in the Preface until 1811, when (if I am reading it correctly) the Preface(s) was wholly omitted, and the service went directly from the Dialogue to a proclamation of the Verba (which were followed by Sanctus & Benedictus + Lord's Prayer and so forth). The Preface(s)returned in 1894, but the Verba, although immediately following it, was no longer "embedded" in it, but treated as a distinct "item."
This would appear to contradict Yelverton, but I don't have the resources to adjudicate between them or to reconcile their accounts.
That is most interesting, and seems to fit a bit better with how I had understood the history of the Swedish mass to go - but my Swedish is non-existant (I spent a long, long time trying to figure out what nae forgotta was in the Red Book, and finally the Latin obfiscemur gave it to me and I thought: You ding dong! I was in the habit of thinking of German as the bridge to the Swedish, not the English; seems about half and half though - at least in the stuff I looked at).
ReplyDeleteThe totally interesting thing about the Petri Preface is that it is one of the very few KO that give the Verba *in* a prayer, and that was why I was saddened to think I had been informed wrong that it was only used for a few years and not for a long time.
Ack!!! WrongLY!!!! I'm all for the preservation of the endangered species. Long live the Adverb!
ReplyDeleteSorry to post so many items on this thread, but there is a theory (a bit unfashionable now, but not disproved) that "originally" (whenever that was) the Eucharistic Anaphora was originally a prayer of praise and thanksgiving that ended solemnly with the Sanctus; and that to this prayer in the course of time other elements were added on after it (the Verba; an Epiclesis; Intercessions -- perhaps one or another of these at different places in different times) and eventually were smoothed together. The great proponent of this idea was the Church of England liturgist, academic and priest E. C. Ratcliff (1896-1967) most of whose ideas were published as obscure articles, but which can be more easily accessed in *Liturgical Studies* by E. C. Ratcliff, ed. David Tripp and Arthur Couratin (London, 1976: SPCK). The book contains his famous "The Sanctus and the Pattern of the Early Anaphora", as well as articles on the Roman Canon, Addai and Mari and Anglican stuff. It is a fairly rare book, but worth looking for (and note Dix's easily overlooked suggestion on p. 221 of *The Shape ...* that the Egyptian anaphora may originally have concluded with the Sanctus). In fact (although this is another issue), if one is going to critique the Roman Canon, one had best try to get a grasp on its origins and the connection of its seemingly discrete elements, and to do this one should glance at Ratcliff and also at the relevant essays in Willis's *Essays in Early Roman Liturgy* (London, 1964: Alcuin Club) and at his *History of Early Roman Liturgy to the time of Gregory the Great* (1994).
ReplyDeleteOh, and yet another thing, in both Norway and Denmark the common name for an ordained person is a "prest" (that is, priest); and while the technical name for a Parish Pastor (i.e., Rector) in Sweden is "Kyrkoherde" (Shepherd of the Church), in Norway it is "Sokneprest" (or Parish Priest -- a "soke" being a division of territory [such as the "Soke of Peterborough" in England]); so the word "priest" survived throughout Scandinavia.
I recall that suggestion in Dix. Knowing the history of the Swedes, I couldn't help but note and underline that with interest. But I've not read the Radcliff or the Willis essays, but I fully intend to now. I'll see if I can find them at St. Louis at Concordia Seminary's library when next in town. Again, thanks for all the good info!
ReplyDelete