# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1875_S11
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 11 —

Over against the Reformed, the breaking of bread is no act of Christian liberty. For they say that if one does not break the bread in the Holy Supper, it is no true Supper; they make it a symbolic act, as if Christ had wished thereby to represent his suffering and death symbolically to us. In this way they want to deny the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, to make it a mere memorial meal and thus to deny the truth of the Gospel. If we yielded to them in this matter, we would have to consent to their error and give up our Christian liberty in it. We see accordingly: every churchly act must be so constituted that it does not contradict the churchly confession. According to our thesis two things are required: 1. every churchly act must be in accord with the confession and 2. it may not in deed contradict the confession. Therefore our thesis says: Every churchly act is either a direct expression and actual realization of the confession or at least may not in deed contradict the confession. Under these two categories all churchly acts can be brought. This principle all also concede.

But since it seemed a contradiction that, according to the thesis, something should move within the sphere of Christian liberty and at the same time be able to contradict the confession, the thesis was adopted unanimously, with omission of the objected words, in the following form:

"From the nature and character of this orthodox confession it follows of necessity that church practice must conform to it. For every churchly act must be either a direct expression and actual realization of the confession or at least may not in deed contradict the confession."

Thesis 7.

From this necessary connection between confession and practice it follows consistently that a truly Lutheran synod may not unite with any other synod calling itself Lutheran into one church body in which the prevailing practice contradicts the confession.

If one asks: why may this not be done? the answer is: We should indeed, with all who are of one faith and confession with us, also demonstrate this unity through fellowship of confession and of love, also, where possible, through churchly union. If we were unwilling and did not do this, we would be schismatics and separatists, or would at least give the evil appearance of separatism. But when in another church body a practice contradicting the churchly confession prevails, it is evident that such a confession of the mouth