I.
The Service of the Sacrament begins fittingly with the preface. As one might expect, the Preface dialogue introduces us to the prayers and canticles that follow it and the Service of the Sacrament as a whole. These ancient words are unquestionably the oldest documented text of the church’s service as evidenced by the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus which records some of the teaching and practice of the early church. This dialogue has remained nearly unchanged in the West since its first appearance; the only substantive change to it has occurred through translation. The text that we are familiar with from Lutheran Service Book is
V: The Lord be with you
R: And with thy spirit.
V: Lift up your hearts!
R: We lift them up unto the Lord.
V: Let us give thanks unto the Lord our God.
R: It is meet and right so to do.
However, a more literal translation of the original Greek might be of greater service for the sake of understanding:
V: The Lord [is] with you
R: And [he is] with thy Spirit
V: Up with your hearts
R: They are to the Lord
V: Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
R: He [alone] is worthy and just
The opening verse of the Preface dialogue— as in the Salutation before the Collect of the Day— is a mutual recognition that the Lord is present and with the presiding minister and the congregation in distinct ways. The Lord is with the pastor by virtue of his ordination in which he received the Holy Spirit with the laying on of hands for the work of the ministry. And likewise the Lord is with the congregation by virtue of their baptism in which they received the Holy Spirit with the application of water for a life of receptivity in relation to the Lord. This first verse and response, therefore, establishes the role of the rightly called and ordained minister to consecrate and distribute the Supper and the role of the baptized and examined congregation to receive the Supper in faith.
The subsequent verse and response has attracted a variety of interpretations especially since the time of the Reformation. Each interpretation is often highly indicative of whether or not the interpreter believes and confesses the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. As an example, John Calvin, the father of the Reformed tradition, held that with these words our minds and hearts are directed upward into heaven where Christ is seated in glory, and not toward the earthly elements of bread and wine which were merely signs or symbols of Christ’s presence. With this interpretation he reinforced his position that Christ could not be in heaven and on earth at the same time and in the same way, and thus he could not really or truly be in the Supper on Christian altars around the world. In his estimation, Christ was locally confined to the right hand of the Father, which he understood spatially, and could not transcend this limitation. The Lutheran reformers like Martin Luther and Martin Chemnitz, however, fully believing Christ’s own words that the bread is his Body and the wine is his Blood, understood these words simply as a call to attend to Christ, specifically to his Words of Institution so as to consider the elements of bread and wine according to Christ’s words and not merely according to human reason and senses.
The final verse and response has suffered both from mis-understanding and mis-translation. Our modern English translations assume that the referent of “worthy” and “just” or “meet” and “right” is the congregation’s act of thanks and praise. However, our Swedish Lutheran brethren have reminded us that the grammatically ambiguous pronoun (he/she/it) is properly understood not as an “it”, but as a “he”. He, namely Christ, is meet and right or, better, “worthy and just”. With this understanding the focus of the verse is shifted from our act of thanks and praise being pleasing, to the Son himself being “well-pleasing”. We give thanks and praise God the Son because he alone is worthy of such praise for all his marvelous gifts to us. Though such an interpretation could, peradventure, be adduced from the modern English translation, it is much clearer translated otherwise.
II.
Following on the heels of this Preface dialogue is the Proper Preface which, as the name implies, is the portion of the Preface which is “proper” to the season. As such, this extended chant rotates based on the time of year and expresses the themes of the given season as the basis for our celebration of the Lord’s Supper. As an example, the Proper Preface for the season of Epiphany is:
It is truly meet, right, and salutary, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks to you, holy Lord, almighty Father, everlasting God, through Jesus Christ our Lord; for what had been hidden from before the foundation of the world you have made known to the nations in your Son. In him, being found in the substance of our mortal nature, you have manifested the fullness of you glory. Therefore with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven we laud and magnify your glorious name, evermore praising you and saying…
The major themes of Epiphany can be clearly seen in the language of “hidden” versus “manifest”, the inclusion of the “nations” or Gentiles, and the emphasis on the Son assuming “our mortal nature”. All of these seasonally form the basis of the praise and thanks of the congregation and serve as the very gifts that the Supper distributes and gives. In the Supper, Christ is manifest among us though hidden under bread and wine. In this meal, we Gentiles receive of his blessings. And finally, through the bread and wine, we eat the assumed flesh and blood of Christ which was crucified for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Because of this very rich confession of the seasonal theme and the benefits of the Supper, a keen ear and fixed attention ought to be rendered to the Proper Prefaces. They are beautiful in both form and function.
III.
Though the Proper Preface is chanted by the presiding minister, quickly the voice of the congregation overtakes him with the exuberant words of the Sanctus (Latin: Holy) and the Benedictus qui Venit (Latin: Blessed is he who comes). Though one single liturgical canticle, the two titles indicate rightly that it comprises two biblical canticles.
The first is the song of the angels in Isaiah 6. In the year that King Uzziah died Isaiah the prophet was serving in the temple and there heaven and earth collided. He saw the Lord seated on his heavenly throne and the train of his robe filled the temple on earth. The seraphim, six winged fiery angels, were seen flying overhead round about the Lord, and together they joined in singing, “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of Sabaoth; the whole earth is full of his glory!” (Isa 6:3). They adorn the triune God with a triple “holy” (Greek: trisagion), and name him as the Lord of “Sabaoth” or the Lord of “hosts/armies” which would include not only the angel hosts at his command, but indeed, all creation, “the heavens and the earth… and all the host of them” (Gen 2:1).
In the time of the Old Testament, this canticle functioned to announce the presence of God who was seated on his throne. In the time of the New Testament, this canticle functions much the same way, however, God’s location is not restricted to his Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 8:10-11), enthroned upon the Cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant (Isa 37:16), but rather he is present and enthroned on Christian altars around the world. There the Lamb who was slain and yet lives reigns from his throne (Rev 5:6). There, around the altar, the “liturgists” of God (Heb 1:7), the “angels and archangels”, cherubim and seraphim, are present and sing with us, blessing and praising God.
The second is the song of David from Psalm 118:25-26. Here David cries out, “Save us!” which in Hebrew is “Hosanna!” and praises saying, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD!” This petition and praise of David is spoken of the Messiah who would come “in the name of the LORD” and “save” the people of God. Notably, this same petition and praise of David is used by the people of Jerusalem who welcome Jesus with palms and shouts of “Hosanna, blessed is the King who comes in the name of the LORD!” (Lk 19:38). Its use in the first century very much informs our own usage in this century. Back then, this song was used by the people of Jerusalem to welcome Christ and hailed him as their king, the very Messiah of God, who would bring them salvation. As it is now, the people of God use this song once more to welcome the present Christ, who comes not on a donkey, but in bread and wine, to save his people with his Body and Blood.
Because both of these canticles are highly suggestive of the presence of Christ on the altar, it is not surprising that many church bodies who deny the presence of Christ have omitted the Sanctus or distanced it from the Words of Institution. A notable example of this is the 1552 edition of the Book of Common Prayer where Archbishop Thomas Cranmer removed the Benedictus qui Venit from the Sanctus and included the infamous “Black Rubric” which expressly stated that Christians should not entertain the “ignorant” and “depraved” opinion that Christ is really and substantially present in the bread and wine while kneeling for communion. Christ’s body and blood are “in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ’s natural body, to be in more places than in one, at one time.” Here, the Anglican Cranmer confesses what the Reformed Calvin and Zwingli also confess, namely, the absence of Christ in the Supper.
IV.
A number of settings of the Sanctus are available for use in Lutheran Service Book. The Sanctus of setting one was composed by Richard Hillert for LBW originally. The melody in setting two is a plainsong tone adapted by J. S. Bach which was further adapted by Regina Fryxell and Ronald Nelson for LBW. The source of the melody for setting three is unknown, although it appears in a number of Lutheran liturgical studies and books. The Sanctus paraphrase in setting four was written by Stephen Starke and set to the tune of THINE by Carl Schalk originally for the HS98. The Sanctus in setting five is Luther’s hymn paraphrase “Isaiah, Mighty Seer in Days of Old,” (LSB 960). This particular hymn from Luther has a long and venerable history within Lutheranism and especially the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. However, in recent years its use has diminished and familiarity with it has greatly faltered. Seasonal substitution of this classic Luther hymn for the Sanctus can be highly beneficial for a fresh and biblical take on a classic canticle.
Rev. Philip D. Bartelt
Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd
Conversion of St. Paul, 2025
