Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper: Applying Scripture and the Confessions to Contemporary Issues (2025)

R62.9

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper: Applying Scripture and the Confessions to Contemporary Issues

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper: Applying Scripture and the Confessions to Contemporary Issues A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

December 2025 a report of

DECEMBER 2025

Abbreviations AC

Augsburg Confession

AE

Luther’s Works

Ap

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

CW

Convention Workbook

FC SD

Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration

FC Ep

Formula of Concord, Epitome

LC

The Large Catechism

SA

Smalcald Articles

SC

The Small Catechism

Copyright © 2026 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod 1333 S. Kirkwood Rd., St. Louis, MO 63122-7295 1-888-843-5267 • lcms.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The quotations from the Lutheran Confessions in this publication are from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, second edition © 2006 Concordia Publishing House. All rights reserved. The quotations from Luther’s Works in this publication are from the American Edition, vol. 40 © 1958 Fortress Press. Used by permission of the publisher. Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents Preface

4

Theological Considerations

7

Substitution of Grape Juice for Ordinary Wine

The Use of Pre-Packaged Elements in the Lord’s Supper

Substitution of Non-Wheat Bread for Wheat Bread

Conclusion

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod direction of 2023 Res. 5-15 and seeks to address the three specific “concerns” about the practice of the Lord’s Supper identified there in: first, the substitution of grape juice for wine; second, the use of pre filled communion cup and wafer sets; and third, the substitution of non-wheat for wheat hosts.

PREFACE

Each one of the three practices mentioned in 2023 Res. 5-15 has its rationale in pastoral concern for the well-being of communicants. Specifically, each addresses

At its 2023 convention The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) adopted

a matter of bodily health and well-being. Pre-packaged elements were introduced

Resolution 5-15, “To Uphold Proper Elements and Reverential Administration of

in some LCMS congregations during the COVID-19 pandemic as an attempt to

the Lord’s Supper,” addressing concerns about the practice of the Lord’s Sup-

protect communicants from transmission of the coronavirus. Churches that make

per.1 The resolution includes reminders that the Supper is “a communal meal . . .

grape juice available rather than wine do so to aid members who suffer from alco-

through which His body and blood are distributed in, with, and under bread and

holism or others who are on medications that should not be taken together with

wine for the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.” The resolution goes on to

alcohol. And churches that offer gluten-free bread in the Supper do so to prevent

reaffirm the confessional teaching “that the proper use of the Sacrament includes

adverse physical reactions to the gluten in wheat. It is important to acknowledge

unified consecration, distribution, and reception” and the consequent fact that the

and commend the compassion and pastoral concern that these practices represent.

Supper “should be kept according to His [Christ’s] institution.” It adds: “It is in-

At the same time, appreciation of the compassion, motivations, and actions at

cum bent on all faithful ministers of the Gospel to remove all obstacles that create

work does not mean that we should ignore the theological appropriateness of

doubt regarding what Christ offers in this Sacrament or detracts from it.” Lastly,

these practices. Therefore, the CTCR seeks to address herein each of these prac-

the final two “Whereas” statements speak about the use of “pre filled communion

tices from a confessional Lutheran theological and pastoral perspective. Our goal

cup and wafer sets” and “the use of non-wheat hosts and/or grape juice” in LCMS

is that our practice would fully align with our confession of the Lord’s Supper as

congregations.

instituted by our Lord Jesus.

Three resolves follow: Resolved, That our pastors and congregations give careful consideration to the reverential treatment of the elements in the administration of the Lord’s Supper; and be it further Resolved, That this convention reaffirms 2001 Resolution 3-16, “To Encourage Use of Only Wine in Administration of Lord’s Supper”; and be it finally Resolved, That the Commission on Theology and Church Relations [CTCR] be instructed to take up these concerns. The following consideration is offered in compliance with the third and final

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2003 Convention Proceedings, 157.

4

5 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper This wonderful promise of the sacramental union and forgiveness in the Lord’s Supper also has a sobering corollary: “We hold that the bread and wine in the Supper are Christ’s true body and blood. These are given and received not only by the godly but also by wicked Christians” (SA III VI 1).3 Given these words, the Small Catechism simply and boldly restates them, confessing that the Sacrament of the Altar “is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself” (SC VI 2). The Formula adds the assurance that the words of Jesus are “simple, plain, clear, firm, and beyond doubt” (FC SD VII 48). Thus Lutherans make a confident confession, grounded in Christ’s trustworthy promises. There is no doubt or quibbling or any attempt to rationalize how such a gift could be given. Faith does not demand an explanation; it receives and rejoices as it trusts in Christ’s promises. Rather, Lutheran Christians firmly confess that the “true” body and blood—that is, the real, actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ— are what Christ gives Christians to eat and to drink. Any talk of Jesus’ words as symbolic or mere figures of speech is ruled out. Thus the Formula of Concord echoes the Apology (X 54) to say, “We believe that in the Lord’s Supper Christ’s body and blood are truly and substantially present and are truly administered with

The Gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). As people hear and believe the Gospel’s promises they are sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13). We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. Holding to Christ in faith, we also hold to His promises. His promises are spoken that we may believe them and so receive what they promise: forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. Faith is thus confident hope. It is assurance that what God promises is ours, even when we do not see it (Heb. 11:1). Among the precious expressions of the Gospel is the Sacrament of the Altar, where Christ explicitly promises that the bread of the Sacrament is His body and the cup of wine is His blood—and that this body was given for us and this blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sins. This is not “interpretation” but a simple ac knowl-

those things that are seen (bread and wine) to those who receive the Sacrament” (FC SD VII 11; emphasis added).

edgment of God’s Word:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.”

All this is true, of course, not only of the Last Supper, but every Lord’s Supper that follows Christ’s intent. Paul’s repetition of Christ’s words in 1 Corinthians proves that they are rightly understood to apply not only to the bread and wine Christ distributed on the night of His betrayal, but are also true for the communion administration of the church in every age (see 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, especially 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:23–24; see also FC SD VII 54–55).

In the same way also He took the cup after supper, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them saying, “Drink of it, all of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”2

3

2

See “The Words of Our Lord,” or Words of Institution, as they appear in the Divine Service of Lutheran Service Book (Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 162, 179, 197, 209, 217.

Therefore Lutherans do not administer the Sacrament without restriction to any and everyone. “Everyone who desires to be a Christian and go to this Sacrament should know them [the words of Christ]. For it is not our intention to let people come to the Sacrament and administer it to them if they do not know what they seek or why they come” (LC V 2). That the “unworthy” receive Christ’s body and blood is taught in 1 Cor. 11:27–32.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

The “word, institution, and ordination” of Christ creates the sacramental union (FC SD VII 73–75).4 And His “Do this” means the validity of the Sacrament also includes more than a mere recitation of Christ’s word over bread and wine. “This embraces the entire action or administration in this Sacrament. In an assembly of Christians bread and wine are taken, consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord’s death is shown forth at the same time. St. Paul also places before our eyes this entire action of the breaking of bread or of distribution and reception (1 Corinthians 10:16)” (FC SD VII 84). This is summarized in the ancient rule that “nothing has the nature of a Sacrament apart from the use [usus] instituted by Christ or apart from the action [actio] divinely instituted” (FC SD VII 85). “The use or action here does not mean chiefly faith. Nor does it mean the oral participation alone. It means the entire external, visible action of the Lord’s Supper instituted by Christ: the consecration, or words of institution, the distribution and reception, or oral partaking of the consecrated bread and wine, of Christ’s body and blood” (FC SD VII 86).

That we seek to avoid ambiguity about the Sacrament, however, does not mean that every specific thing described in the Last Supper or in Paul’s advice to Corinth must be followed in some kind of rigid mimicry. When Jesus said, “Do this,” He focused on eating the bread that He promises is His very body and drinking the cup that He assures us is His very blood. Our Lord’s emphasis is not on such things as the Passover setting or the physical action of breaking a loaf or other such matters. He tells us simply to eat and drink the bread and cup that are His body and blood—and there by assures us that our sins are forgiven.

Given the emphatic certainty of the Gospel in the words of Jesus when He instituted His Holy Supper, we should be concerned if any church practice fails to follow His institution or if it introduces doubt or uncertainty about the Supper. Instead, the church rightly seeks to follow our Lord’s own institution in Holy Communion. Just as our Lord took bread and wine, declaring it His body and blood and promising that “in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words” (SC VI 6), so we also echo His very words over bread and wine, distributing them in confident faith because He has declared that He wants to distribute His very body and blood in this way. The clear words of Christ answer essential questions: “For Christ gives this command at the table and at supper. There is certainly no doubt that He speaks of real, natural bread and of natural wine. Also, He speaks of oral eating and drinking” (FC SD VII 48). Everything important is there in the Words of Institution. Because they are simple and clear and make unambiguous promises, our practice should avoid anything that takes the plain, powerful words of Jesus and produces questions or uncertainty, or leads to unhelpful, confusing, or illegitimate practices.

The Latin text reads, “verbo, institutioni atque ordinationi,” and the German, “Wort, Einsetzung und Ordnung.” See Concordia Triglotta, 999.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper Luther and the Confessions, and of confessional Lutheran teachers who followed. Throughout this history the term “fruit of the vine” has been understood as a technical term and not a general description. The LCMS and its theologians have with great consistency affirmed that only bread and wine are to be used in the Lord’s

Supper. This position can be traced from C. F. W. Walther to Franz Pieper to the faculties of our seminaries to the CTCR.7 In 1998, the Synod convention affirmed this understanding in Res. 3-16B, “To Affirm Use of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar.” In keeping with its title,

This is not the place to trace the history of how and why grape juice came to be

the resolution included reminders that the Scriptures are unanimous in stating

substituted for wine in the practice of Holy Communion. We should simply note

that our Lord used bread and a cup of wine in the Last Supper and that the same

that the practice came out of Methodist revivalism’s condemnation of all alcohol

were present in the Sacrament at Corinth. Pastors were urged to “remain faithful

use and was spurred by Thomas Welch’s (a Methodist minister) development of a

in their practice of Christ’s institution” so as “not to introduce an element of un-

way to prevent the fermentation of grape juice through pasteurization.6

certainty into the Sacrament.”8

Over time the substitution of grape juice for wine was adopted by many Protestant

As noted in 2023 Res. 5-15, the Synod again addressed this topic in 2001, in Res.

churches and even by some LCMS congregations. Within the LCMS, however, this

3-16, “To Encourage Use of Only Wine in Administration of the Lord’s Supper.”

practice has not involved a total substitution of grape juice for wine. In such cases

The convention then addressed congregations that were using grape juice: “That

wine is used by most members and grape juice is available for alcoholics and oth-

the congregations be encouraged to use only wine for the Sacrament.”9 Once

ers who avoid alcohol for medical reasons.

more, in 2023 Res. 5-15, the Synod again reaffirmed its 2001 Res. 3-16 stance, “To

Although some LCMS congregations may in some situations substitute grape juice

Encourage Use of Only Wine in Administration of Lord’s Supper.”10

for wine in the Lord’s Supper, the LCMS has taken a long-standing, consistent po-

We must add that this consistent position also indicates concern for the commu-

sition against the practice. For this reason, although 2023 Res. 5-15 asked the CTCR

nicant who for various reasons cannot tolerate alcohol. The discussions of both

to take up the three concerns we are addressing herein, the use of grape juice in

seminaries and the CTCR all note the availability of low or non-alcoholic wines

place of wine can be considered most briefly. The resolution itself reaffirms a 2001

that may be used without objection.

resolution that strongly encourages our congregations to use only wine and not grape juice (see Appendix A for the full text of 2001 Res. 3-16). The Synod’s position on this matter predates 2001 and is based firmly on Scripture. It is also consistent with the traditions of the church before the Reformation, of

A relatively brief history of the temperance movement in the US is available on the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine. See Paul Aaron and David Musto, “Temperance and Prohibition in America: A Historical Overview,” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216414/.

See Joe Iovino, “Methodist History: Communion and Welch’s Grape Juice,” United Methodist Church, June 28, 2016, https://www.umc.org/en/content/communion-and-welchs-grape-juice#:~:text=To%20 combat%20the%20epidemic%20of,it%20is%20such%20common%20practice.

7

See Walther’s Pastoral Theology (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), 199; Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Concordia Publishing House, 1953), fns 94, 354; also “Opinion of the Department of Systematic Theology,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 45, nos. 1–2 (1981): 77–80; “Is ‘Non-Alcoholic Wine’ Really Wine?” Concordia Journal 17, no. 1 (1991): 4–6; Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper (The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1983), under 2. The Elements, b. The Wine, 16–17.

See The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1998 Convention Proceedings.

See The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2001 Convention Proceedings.

2023 Convention Proceedings, 157.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

There is no reason to question the Synod’s time-honored position on this matter. The elements referred to in Scripture are without question bread and wine. The Synod therefore rightly opposes the substitution of pasteurized grape juice for wine in the Sacrament. Rather, the Commission echoes Concordia Theological

IN THE LORD’S SUPPER

Seminary’s “Opinion of the Department of Systematic Theology”:

We strongly urge, therefore, lest confusion be multiplied, offense be given, consciences and peace within the church be disturbed, that Lutheran pastors and people continue a consistent practice in support of the Scripturally designated elements in Holy Communion, especially as regards the use of wine, “the fruit of the vine,” which Christ instituted when He gave to His church this new testament in His blood.11

Historical Background Of the three practices that are named in 2023 Res. 5-15, the most recent—at least

In conclusion, we commend once more the Synod’s long-standing teaching that

in the LCMS—is the introduction of pre-packaged bread and wine (or grape juice).

only bread and wine should be used in the Lord’s Supper, since “the use of an

COVID-19 led to skyrocketing use of the packets in many Protestant and Evangel-

element other than wine is an alien practice in the churches of the Augsburg Con-

ical churches,12 and also to some use in the LCMS. The recent rise of pre-packaged

fess ion and brings about doubt whether the Sacrament is offered or not” (2001

elements resulted from the mystery of how COVID-19 was spreading. The use of

Res. 3-16).

packets was linked to other changes in church life, from widespread temporary suspension of worship in many churches, to parking lot services, to physical separation of individuals and families in sanctuaries, and so forth. For one vendor of the pre-packaged elements, sales rose by 1,000 percent in the year after COVID-19 hit the US.13 Over the centuries, various ways of providing the communion elements have been employed in the church catholic. With regard to the bread, practice has varied through church history. The earliest evidence indicates that ordinary table bread was used. The Roman Catholic tradition now is to use only unleavened wheat bread; churches of the East generally use leavened bread. For many years a larger

“Opinion of the Department of Systematic Theology,” 80. Earlier in its opinion, the Systematic department offers this strong caution: “Those who simply ‘prefer’ to receive grape juice instead of wine should be led to see that their ‘preference’ is in violation of Scripture’s own clear teaching and that they are there by making the Sacrament an uncertain matter, if in fact not invalid. Moreover, it is to be feared that such tampering with the Sacrament may in the final analysis involve a deeper error, the relegating of the Lord’s Supper to a mere memorial meal instead of the blessed means of grace that Christ has constituted it to be for our spiritual well-being, for the forgiveness of sins” (80). See Appendix B for the full text of this opinion.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Lutheranism can arguably be placed under the Protestant and the Evangelical umbrella as a church body that stems from the sixteenth-century Reformation. However, within this document our general practice will be to distinguish confessional Lutheranism from other Protestants and Evangelicalism.

Parija Kavilanz, “Easter Is Here, and So Are Disposable, Pre-filled Communion Cups,” CNN Business, April 7, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/business/pre filled-communion-cups/index.html.

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

loaf was employed—sometimes leavened and sometimes not. Both unleavened

when the Sacrament was taken to the sick and in the practice mentioned by certain

and leavened bread have been used, usually made from wheat flour, although there

church fathers of laity taking home the host for communing privately and in the

is evidence that in some places other grains were acceptable to make the flour for

communion of young children.18 In the East the Sacrament “is always given in both

the bread. Usually the unleavened bread for the Sacrament is made with only flour

forms—bread and wine.”19 Thus, the Roman practice of communing in only one

and water, but in some places oil is added, and in others wine or salt may also be in

kind is a novelty in the catholic tradition that, unfortunately, became the standard

the dough.14 The creation of the individual host dates to the seventh or eighth cen-

in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Protests against the practice of with-

tury, and by the ninth century the practice of individually made unleavened hosts

holding the cup preceded the Reformation, but with the Reformers the chalice was

was nearly uniform in the West (almost always baked in monasteries with prayer

returned to the laity in virtually every strand of the Reformation.

and fasting). However, a few, even in the West, preferred a single loaf of leavened

As noted above, however, some Protestants began the variation of using some-

bread for the Eucharist.15

thing other than wine in the cup. Then, beginning in the twentieth century and

With the Reformation came more change. The Reformed eventually insisted on

due to advances in knowledge about disease transmission, the common chalice

the use of ordinary loaves in the Supper, because of the symbolism inherent there-

gradually gave way to the use of individual metal cups or glasses and then indi-

in, while Lutherans generally retained the Roman practice of individual hosts.16

vidual plastic cups. The cups were almost always filled in advance of the service.

The wine of the Supper through history also exhibits significant variety. Only grape

The rationale for the practice is the assumption that communicants are there by protected from colds, flu, or other diseases. (It should be noted, however, that this

wine appears to have been used throughout the church, although some heretical

assumption cannot be firmly substantiated and that there is no verifiable evidence

groups used only water rather than wine. While water alone was condemned, wine

of any transmission of infections via the common cup.)20 Over time the use of indi-

was typically diluted with water in the ancient world, in Jewish practice, and so

vidual portions of wine became common also in the LCMS, and the Synod formally

also in the church. Augustine mentions the practice, and Cyprian of Carthage com-

approved the use of individual glasses in 1944.21

ments on this theologically, although the practice was more likely the result of practicality and custom than theology.17 The grape varieties used for wine varied. The practice of communing in one kind, or withholding the cup, is of course one of the most significant variations that occurred in the practice of the Lord’s Supper. The practice of the New Testament church, as we know from Corinth, or of the

See Patrick Toner, “Communion under Both Kinds,” II. History of Disciplinary Variations, 2, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4 (Robert Appleton Company, 1908), https://www.new advent.org/ cathen/04175a.htm (accessed February 22, 2026).

“Holy Eucharist,” Orthodox Church in America, https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/ worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist (accessed August 22, 2024).

In 1998 the US Center for Disease Control “reported that there had never been an outbreak of infection related to the communion cup and that a theoretical risk of transmitting infectious diseases by using a common communion cup exists, but that the risk is so small that it is undetectable.” See “COVID-19 and Holy Communion” Public Health 187 (2020): 134–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.puhe.2020.08.012. A later study published in light of COVID-19 came to this same conclusion that “the common communion cup may serve as a potential vehicle for transmission. However, the risk is considerably lower compared to other conditions of social gathering. Furthermore, the transmission of any infectious disease has never been documented” (emphasis added); see Dimitrios Anyfantakis, “Holy Communion and Infection Transmission: A Literature Review,” Cureus Journal of Medical Science, June 21, 2020, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8741.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1944 Convention Proceedings, 254–55.

Western Church in general into the twelfth century was clearly Communion in both kinds, although there were exceptions in isolated circumstances, for example,

See Henri Leclercq, “Host,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (Robert Appleton Company, 1910), https://www.new advent.org/cathen/07489d.htm (accessed August 19, 2024).

Lucia Graziano, “Communion Wafers Instead of Loaves: A History,” Aleteia, February 7, 2023, https:// aleteia.org/2023/02/07/communion-wafers-instead-of-loaves-a-history (accessed August 19, 2024).

“Host,” Catholic Encyclopedia.

Augustine, “On Christian Doctrine,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff (Hendrickson reprint, 1995), 590; Cyprian, “Epistle 62: Caecilius, on the Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Hendrickson reprint, 1995), 358–64.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

Response

Prior use of individual pre-packaged elements for the Lord’s Supper is even more recent, dating only to the closing years of the twentieth century.22 The initial “mar-

We noted above that the accounts of the Last Supper in Matthew, Mark, and Luke,

ket” was among Evangelical churches and other Protestants whose practice of the

as well as Paul’s comments about the Sacrament in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, cer-

Lord’s Supper involved having filled individual glasses (usually with grape juice)

tainly indicate something of how the Lord’s Supper was administered first by Jesus

in a cup holder attached to the pew in front of the worshipers. Convenience was

and then in the New Testament church. In both the Passover meal when Jesus

the initial rationale for the pre-packaged elements since the laborious process of

first instituted His Supper and in Paul’s description of the Sacrament as he had

filling each individual glass could be avoided.23

received it, we hear of bread (artos) that is taken, blessed with thanksgiving,25 bro-

During the pandemic, many congregations, including some in the LCMS, adopted

ken, and then distributed for eating with the assurance that it is Christ’s body. In

the use of pre-packaged elements as a way to have the Lord’s Supper without any

like manner, a cup of wine is taken up to be blessed and declared to be His blood,

perceived danger of virus transmission from either bread or cup. Plus, the packets

and participants are invited to drink.

simplified distribution for churches that met in parking lots and enabled it also for

With regard to right practice, then, the Synod holds firmly to the confessional un-

churches that held online or “virtual worship” by having members use pre-pack-

der standing that the validity of the Lord’s Supper involves certain necessities: (1)

aged elements that had been delivered to their homes.24

right consecration—the use of the words of Jesus (Words of Institution) spoken

Polarization of opinions was an unfortunate result of the various responses to

over (2) the appropriate earthly elements of bread and wine, followed by (3) the

COVID-19. Some condemned those who refused government restrictions and

distribution to the congregation for them to eat and drink (see, e.g., FC SD VII

counsel. Others condemned those who followed the guidelines. The use of com-

79–82; FC SD VII 121; FC Ep VII 8–9; FC SD VII 75).

munion packets was yet another source of disagreement. The debates and, too

Given the various ways that bread and cup have been given and received by Chris-

often, rancor affected churches and circuits. Hence, the LCMS convention request

tians, as described above, one must proceed with caution before passing judg-

to consider the practice of using pre-packaged elements in 2023 Res. 5-15. But we

ment on practice. For example, there has been widespread acceptance in most of

note that the same convention also urged “charity and latitude” among Synod pas-

Christianity of the use of bread that is provided in individual portions rather than

tors regarding the various approaches taken in response to the pandemic.

from a single loaf. Similarly, even churches that do not utilize individual glasses for the Sacrament often employ several chalices when communing a very large assembly. Synod congregations have used both a single loaf and, more commonly, individual hosts, leavened and unleavened bread—all without condemnation or

According to the Chicago Tribune, prepackaged elements were first marketed in 1996. See “Communion in a Cup Has Its Converts, Naysayers,” April 19, 1996, updated August 18, 2021, https://www .chicago tribune.com/1996/04/19/communion-in-a-cup-has-its-converts-naysayers/.

Although popular, the communion package also had detractors even within Evangelicalism. “Communion in a Cup” notes that critics argued that the practice undermined the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper.

The LCMS has, of course, strongly opposed virtual or online Communion. See 2023 Convention Proceedings, Res. 5-08A, 152–53. The third “Resolved” reads: “That the Synod in convention clearly and unequivocally reject and condemn the practice of virtual (online) Communion.” See Appendix C for the full text of the resolution. See also the various CTCR opinions on this issue, available online at http://resources.lcms.org/reading-study/ctcr-library-means-of-grace-sacraments-lutheran-doctrine -and-practice/.

question. And many if not most congregations offer individual cups with explicit Synod approval. The LCMS has no resolutions or statements on the use of pre-packaged elements, and there is no incontrovertible scriptural basis for asserting that the use of individual packets of bread and wine would inherently invalidate the Sacrament of

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Matthew and Mark speak of Jesus “blessing” the bread (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22), while Luke and Paul describe Him giving “thanks” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24).

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

the Altar. This does not mean that any and every practice is acceptable regarding

Communion packets are available for purchase from a number of sources. Some

pre-packaged elements, especially since the Synod has addressed the manner of

provide only a portion of unleavened bread with grape juice. A few offer both

distributing the cup in the Lord’s Supper. We offer the following comments giving

packets with grape juice and with wine and some also offer gluten-free bread in

our considered opinion about their use:

their packets.

Consecration: As is always the case in the Lord’s Supper, the words of Christ must

Only packets that are filled with bread and wine are acceptable under any circum-

be spoken over the elements.

stances in LCMS congregations.

Distribution: The manner of distribution varies. As is the case in general, some

To be sure, the words can be spoken over pre-packaged elements.

congregations have communicants come to the altar, kneel, and then receive Com-

However, the packets prevent a more explicit declaration. In a typical setting, the

munion. Others have individuals walk forward and receive the Sacrament while

pastor can clearly indicate the bread and the cup (or cups) separately during the

standing, and then return to their seats (continuous Communion). In exceptional

Words of Institution. He indicates the bread by touching or lifting it as he repeats

cases members are communed in their seat. Regarding pre filled packets, variety

our Lord’s words: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in

also existed. Three approaches were observed in LCMS congregations during the

remembrance of Me.” Then, he repeats Christ’s words as he indicates the cup:

pandemic. In some churches, packets were handed to each individual com muni-

“Drink of it, all of you, this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for

cant by the pastor or an elder assisting him. In others, individuals helped them-

you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance

selves, taking the packet from a tray or basket as they approached the altar to

of Me.”

commune. A third form of distribution was having individuals take a communion

In our judgment, the consecration of packets lends itself to a confusion that is not

packet together with a service folder (bulletin) as they entered the church and

evident in typical consecration.

then, during the service of the Sacrament, communing in their seat.

Also, the use of disposable plastic cups raises concerns about the proper and rever-

In general, the manner of reception is an adiaphoron.

ent treatment of the consecrated wine that remains after Communion.26

However, we strongly discourage the practice of having individuals take commu-

Elements: The LCMS affirms the biblical and confessional understanding that

nion elements for themselves into the service and then communing in their seats

only bread and wine should be used in the Lord’s Supper.

This practice is problematic in two ways. First, it largely prevents any pastoral care regarding who is prepared for the Sacrament. Second, it raises confusion and doubt about the point of reference in the consecration when the pastor speaks of “this bread” and “drink this cup.” Should he say “That is My body” or “That cup is the new testament in My blood”?

In Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, page 17, the CTCR states: “The consecrated elements which remain after all have communed should be treated with reverence. This reverence has been expressed by Lutherans in various ways. Some have followed the ancient practice of burning the bread and pouring the wine upon the earth. Others have established a basin and drain—piscina—specifically for the disposal of the wine. The elders or altar guild may also return the consecrated bread and wine to specific containers for future sacramental use, or the elders and pastor can consume the remaining elements. All of these practices should be understood properly. The church is not, there by, conferring upon the elements some abiding status apart from their use in the Lord’s Supper itself.” See also the reference to FC SD VII 14–15 on page 17.

Further, since “self-communing” in the pew is common in many Reformed churches and congregations, this may lead to confusion regarding crucial differences between Lutheran and Reformed theology and practice. Given these concerns, while the Commission does not consider the use of pre-packaged elements to be inherently illegitimate, we find it troubling. The use

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

of pre-packaged elements invites confusion and can encourage bad practices. As noted above, such usage seems to invite some churches to adopt specific practices that undermine or prevent the practice of closed Communion and may also create

questions about what has or has not been consecrated. Consequently, such a practice may under some circumstances create doubts that may cause communicants to be unsure that they are receiving Christ’s body and blood and therefore to refrain from reception. For these reasons, we believe the Synod should discourage their future use. This judgment does not in any way seek to condemn those pastors and congregations that, according to their best judgment during the confusion of the COVID-19 pandemic, made use of the packets. Nevertheless, we believe that the potential for

Biblical and Historical Background

confusion and bad practice outweighs any potential benefit. The great treasure

The question of the propriety of using bread made from grains other than wheat is

that is Christ’s Holy Supper should not be discounted in place of uncertain at-

largely a result of requests by individuals who suffer from celiac disease or another

tempts to avoid disease. Moreover, if we emphasize worries about the potential for

form of gluten intolerance. Although celiac disease was diagnosed as early as the

disease transmission, public worship itself would be viewed as a possible threat to

second century AD, it was given little study or medical treatment until the 1800s.27

physical well-being because of the constant presence of influenza, continuing out-

Both celiac disease (CD) and non-celiac gluten intolerance (NCGS) have garnered

breaks of COVID-19, and other contagions. Our deepest concern as Christians is

increasing attention in recent years. The World Journal of Gastroenterology (WJG)

not threats to the body, but threats to our soul. Jesus rightly admonishes us about

says that “currently, 1% of the United States population holds a diagnosis for celiac

the danger of living in fear of this world’s threats and ignoring God (Matt. 10:28).

disease (CD), however, a more recently recognized and possibly related condition,

A risk to the spiritual well-being of those who would be uncertain of the Sacrament

‘non-celiac gluten sensitivity’ (NCGS) has been suggested to affect up to 6% of the

should rank above the unlikelihood that Communion will endanger us physically.

United States public.”28 In addition to those with such diagnoses, a significantly higher number of Americans—about 20% of the population—have chosen to adopt a gluten-free diet without either a CD or NCGS diagnosis.29 This has led to concerns about the Sacrament, since wheat hosts or bread have been used almost exclusively for generations. By the late twentieth century non-gluten hosts were offered to churches as an alternative to wheat hosts for use in cases of CD or other gluten intolerance. Significant numbers of LCMS churches offer non-gluten hosts

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

See “History of Celiac Disease,” Beyond Celiac, https://www.beyond celiac.org/celiac-disease/ celiac-history/ (accessed September 17, 2024). The death rate for untreated celiac children is about 30 percent. Because of high rates of child mortality, the fact that celiac victims tended to be children may have prevented scientific attention until more recent times.

Samuel O. Igbinedion et al., “Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: All Wheat Attack Is Not Celiac,” WJG 23, no. 40 (2017): 7201–10, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29142467/.

Igbinedion, et al.

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

to those who request them. Hence the question of their propriety has been raised

usage of a word in the ancient world during both the period of Classical Greek literature and later, more common (Koine) biblical and early church literature. The definitions for artos vary somewhat in the dictionaries but can be summarized: In Classical Greek when artos appears without a modifier it seems to have referred to wheat bread almost exclusively; however, the definition broadened to become the general term for all bread in the Koine period.30

in 2023 Res. 5-15. Regarding the bread of the Lord’s Supper, this is what we have been given in Scripture: Matthew 26:26 – “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is

The Bible knows different grains and breads. Wheat and wheat bread are most frequently mentioned (over fifty times), but barley and bread made from barley are also mentioned frequently (more than thirty times). As for other types of grain, the only certain reference of bread made from them is the passage in Ezekiel 4:9, where the Lord commands the prophet to make bread from a mixed flour containing wheat, barley, beans, lentil, millet, and emmer. The term “bread” (lehem in Hebrew, artos in Greek) is far more common than specific terms such as “wheat bread” or “barley bread.” It is used over two hundred times in the Old Testament and nearly one hundred times in the New Testament. “Bread” can mean a loaf, a cake, or a wafer—although when the wafer is unleavened bread in the Old Testament the term matzah rather than lehem is typical.

My body.’” Mark 14:22 – “And as they were eating, He took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is My body.’” Luke 22:19 – “And He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.’” 1 Corinthians 11:23–24 – “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, ‘This is My

Bread is further used in ways that go beyond the literal. Since bread was the staple in the diet of the biblical world, the Bible also can use “bread” as shorthand for food or nourishment (e.g., Prov. 6:8; Lam. 1:11; Ezek. 18:16; Matt. 6:11; Luke 14:15; 15:17; 2 Thess. 3:12). Reference to bread being broken is connected with the blessing of the meal by the head of the household and the subsequent distribution of food. This is also, of course, the sense in the four Lord’s Supper narratives. The combination of breaking and bread in Luke and Acts seems to indicate partaking of a meal in some cases (Luke 24:35; Acts 2:46; 20:11), but it may refer to the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). Certainly “the bread that we break” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 refers to the Supper.

body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.’” In each of the passages, the text shows that Jesus took “bread” with a blessing or thanksgiving, and distributed it to the disciples with the words “This is My body.” The concern the CTCR has here been asked to address is whether it is consistent with our Lord’s “Do this” for congregations to use “non-wheat hosts” in the Lord’s Supper. That is, since the Lord took “bread” as one of the elements of the Lord’s Supper, is bread made from something other than wheat a valid earthly element? The Confessions simply describe Christ’s instruction: “For Christ gives this command at the table and at supper. There is certainly no doubt that He speaks of real,

There is further usage of the term “bread” beyond any reference to normal grain bread. Note the connection with manna, “bread from heaven” (Ex. 16:4, 8; Psalm

natural bread and of natural wine. Also, He speaks of oral eating and drinking” (FC SD VII 48). Therefore, consistent with our response in the matter of substituting grape juice for wine, we should state at the outset that using something other than

“natural bread” would not be in keeping with our Lord’s words. The Greek word translated as “bread” in the four passages cited is artos. For biblical studies, Greek lexicons (dictionaries) provide definitions by summarizing the

Several dictionaries can be consulted: Henry George Liddell et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th rev. ed. (Oxford University Press, 1996); James Diggle et al., eds., The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, 2021); Johannes Behm, “artos,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Eerdmans, 1964); Walter Bauer et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (University of Chicago Press, 2000).

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

105:40; Neh. 9:15; John 6:31). And, of course, Christ refers to Himself as the true bread or bread of life (John 6:31–59).

tion (1 Cor. 10:14–22; 11:20–34).33 Although grain was certainly used for the bread of the Last Supper and in Corinth, no text explicitly describes the kind of grain used in either case.

The Bible knows more than one kind of bread, although wheat bread is mentioned more than other grains or bread. Jesus uses wheat in parables such as the Parable of the Weeds (Matt. 13:24–30) and of the Dishonest Manager (Luke 16:1–30). Bread made from the “finest wheat” seems to have been the preferred bread for the Old Testament. For example, “fine wheat flour” is used for the unleavened bread offered during the consecration of priests (Ex. 29:2; see also Deut. 32:14). Barley is also frequently mentioned in the Bible, but it evidently was a humbler grain or, at any rate, less costly than wheat (e.g., Rev. 6:6). Of note are the twenty barley loaves that Elisha used miraculously to feed one hundred men (2 Kings 4:42–44) and the five barley loaves from which our Lord fed five thousand men and their families (John 6:9–13).

The early church practice of the Lord’s Supper was distinguished from the Jewish Passover, as was the case in Corinth. In the earliest Christian centuries, there is no evidence of controversy over the kind of bread—whether leavened or unleavened—that should be used in the Supper. It appears that ordinary leavened bread was used most widely throughout the early church. Over time, however, a division regarding leavening developed between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity. Eventually unleavened bread was used almost exclusively among the Roman—or Western—Church and leavened bread was used in the East.34 This became one of the factors leading to the Great Schism.35 In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas concluded that only unleavened wheat bread should be used in the Sacrament. Although he argues that only wheat bread should be used, he concedes that there are other practices in some places where cereal grains that resemble wheat were used in the Sacrament. He allows that some mixture of other grains with wheat may be acceptable for use in the Sacrament, as long as wheat predominates. He also mentions that some have thought wheat starch could be used in place of wheat flour. As for leavening, Thomas is more circumspect. Wheat is “necessary,” while unleavened bread is only “suitable” because it is in accord with the Roman rite, while leavened bread is suitable in the East according to their rite. Nevertheless, overall, unleavened bread is “more reasonable.”36

The passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe the Last Supper in the upper room with Jesus and His disciples as the Passover. Thus the bread that Jesus used at that meal would almost certainly have been unleavened bread since Passover directly preceded the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:4–6). Given their proximity, Luke refers to Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread as one event (Luke 22:1). Houses were cleansed of leaven in preparation for Passover and the following Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ex. 12:15–20; Deut. 16:16).31 The leavening to be cleansed would have included any leavened grain bread, such as barley as well as wheat.32 Given the direct connection between Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it is of note that the word for bread in the first three Gospels is artos, the general term for bread, and not the specific Greek term for unleavened bread (azymos). Then, in Paul’s teaching about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, there is no mention of a Passover setting or of unleavened bread. In those chapters Paul, too, speaks only of bread generally (artos, not azymos) without further qualifica-

See Francis X. E. Albert, “Azymes,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2 (Robert Appleton Company, 1907), http://www.new advent.org/cathen/02171a.htm.

There is specific mention of barley in Rabbinic Judaism (Tosefta, Pisha, 3:8f.). Later Talmudic Judaism holds that matzah (unleavened bread) is to be made from one of the grains mentioned in the Torah (wheat, barley, spelt, rye, oats).

See “Passover: Matzah,” Jewish Virtual Library, https://www .jewish virtual library.org/matzah. Karaite Jews used only barley, believing it to be most suited to serve as the “bread of affliction” (Deut. 16:3) since it was the bread commonly eaten by the poor.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Paul’s only mention of Passover in 1 Corinthians is in chapter 5, where the subject is the incestuous sexual relationship of a man in Corinth. In arguing for the necessity that the man be disciplined by the church, Paul says: “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (vv. 6–8).

Augustin Joseph Schulte, “Altar Breads,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (Robert Appleton Company, 1907), http://www.new advent.org/cathen/01349d.htm.

For a brief discussion, see “East-West Schism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/ event/East-West-Schism-1054 (accessed September 19, 2024).

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 58, trans. William Barden (Blackfriars, 1965), 35–39 (Part 3, ques. 74, arts. 3, 4).

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

Thomas’s conclusion that unleavened wheat should be used in the Sacrament was

procedures that would alter the nature of bread.” 39 Here the judgment is not what

endorsed by the Council of Florence in 1439 for use in the West, stating that “the

may be more “suitable” or “reasonable.” An “invalid” sacrament is no sacrament.

body of Christ is truly con fec ted in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread,

The use of low-gluten hosts made by authorized providers is suggested as the only

and priests should conf ect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest accord-

acceptable alternative to gluten-free hosts.40

ing to the custom of his western or eastern church.”37 For Rome, this teaching

With the Reformation came a significant reconsideration of the nature of the Sac-

remains unchanged. Trent reaffirmed it as did John Paul’s Instruction Redemption is

rament and also its elements. While the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass was

Sacrament um in 2004. Paragraph 49 is explicit:

the central point of contention, Luther also addressed other matters, including the bread used in the Lord’s Supper. In Luther’s Against the Heavenly Prophets in

The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for con fec ting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for con fec ting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.38

the Matter of Images and Sacraments he discusses sacramental bread in the context of his rejection of the view that has the validity of the Lord’s Supper hanging on duplication of doing everything that Christ does. “But we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to do or refrain from doing all that Christ has done or refrained from doing.”41 It is what Christ teaches—the Word alone—that matters. Attempts to mimic Christ’s actions exactly would lead to “utter foolishness,” says Luther, even to avoiding the Sacrament completely due to uncertainty about exactly what Christ did or did not do (or say) at the Last Supper. Sarcastically he writes: “Since we do not know and the text does not state whether red or white wine was used, whether wheat rolls or barley bread were used, we must by reason of doubt at this point refrain from observing the Last Supper, until we become certain about it, so that we do not make any external detail differ a hairsbreadth from what Christ’s example sets forth.”42 To the contrary, Luther concludes: “No one is to command or prohibit anything which he has neither commanded nor forbidden.”43 The kind of bread and the color of wine are adiaphora.

The same ruling was reiterated in 2017 by Cardinal Robert Sarah in a letter on behalf of Pope Francis. “Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist. Low-gluten hosts (partially gluten-free) are valid matter, provided they contain a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of

“Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431–49 AD,” Session 6, July 6, 1439, Papal Encyclicals Online, https://www.papal encyclicals.net//councils/ecum17.htm (accessed February 19, 2026).

The Holy See, “Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament,” III 1, paragraph 48, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds _doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html.

“Letter to Bishops on the Bread and Wine for the Eucharist,” Vatican Radio, July 8, 2017, https://www .archivioradiovaticana.va/storico/2017/07/08/letter_to_bishops_on_the_bread_and_wine_for_the _eucharist/en-1323886.

Four providers of hosts are named by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Committee on Divine Worship, “Celiac Disease, Alcohol Intolerance, and the Church’s Pastoral Response,” updated April 20, 2016, https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/ liturgy-of-the-eucharist/celiac-disease-and-alcohol-intolerance.

Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, AE 40:131.

AE 40:132–33.

AE 40:133.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

This general perspective with regard to the altar bread has been passed down

In 1983 the CTCR continued in the same vein, but with one variation. In consider-

in Lutheran theology. Martin Chemnitz notes former debates about the

ing “The Elements” to be used in the Lord’s Supper, the CTCR states:

bread—“Whether it should be of wheat, whether leavened or unleavened”—but

The Greek word for bread in the New Testament texts, artos, is generic. It applies to bread in general. While Greek has a more restricted term, azumos [azymos], for unleavened bread, it is not found in any of the New Testament accounts of the Lord’s Supper.

adds that “the church judged correctly that these things are free and not of necessity for the sacrament.”44 In naming only wheat—“whether it should be of wheat”—before saying that “these things are free and not of necessity,” Chemnitz apparently holds simply that the kind of grain may not be restricted only to wheat at risk of binding something that has been kept free. Generations later, C. F. W. Walther also addresses the matter of sacramental bread

The fact that unleavened bread was used in the Passover and that the three evangelists set the time for the Lord’s Supper “on the first day of [the Feast of] Unleavened Bread” would strongly suggest the use of unleavened bread in our Lord’s original action (Matt. 26:17; cf. Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7). Therefore we have reason to conclude that unleavened bread should also be used today. Since the Scriptures are silent on the source of the bread, it may be baked from the flour of wheat, rye, barley, or other grains. While the form of distribution should reflect reverence for the elements, there is no specific guidance on the size or shape of the wafer or portion.49

in his Pastoral Theology. In his discussion of “Valid administration of the Lord’s Supper” (emphasis original), Walther states:

Whether the bread is made with yeast or not; whether it is rye, wheat, corn, barley, or oat bread; and whether it has this or that shape is an adiaphoron, so long as it is a baked good [made] with grain flour and water.45 Interestingly, Walther puts rye before wheat in his list of grains. One can only speculate that this may be the case because of the strong preference for rye in German breads and baked goods.46 Walther’s perspective, that the kind of grain used to make the bread of the Supper is an in different thing, has continued to be endorsed by later LCMS theologians. Franz Pieper quotes directly from Walther’s theological opinion in his Christian

Note that the CTCR here also views the type of flour to be an in different thing, but

Dogmatics.47 John H. C. Fritz paraphrases Walther’s statement, listing the same

concludes that “unleavened bread should also be used today” (emphasis added).50

grains in the same order.48

The most recent statement from within LCMS circles on the bread to be used in Holy Communion comes from Pastoral Theology (1990), edited by Norbert Muel-

Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II, Chemnitz’s Works, trans. Fred Kramer (Concordia Publishing House, 1978), 540.

Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, American-Lutheran Pastoral Theology, Walther’s Works, ed. David W. Loy, trans. Christian C. Tiews (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), 168.

“The History of German Bread: A Crusty Chronicle,” German Culture, https://german culture.com.ua/ baking-recipes/history-of-german-bread/ (accessed June 20, 2023).

Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 354.

John H. C.

Fritz, Pastoral Theology: A Handbook of Scriptural Principles Written Especially for Pastors of the Lutheran Church (Concordia Publishing House, 1945).

ler and George Kraus. They also continue the position set forth in Walther, but provide a somewhat more substantial discussion of the type of bread that may be used in the Sacrament of the Altar. In so doing, they distinguish between what is “essential” for the Lord’s Supper and what is “custom”:

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

CTCR, The Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, 15–16.

CTCR, The Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, 16.

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

In the Koine Greek, artos is the generic name given to bread of whatever kind—white, whole wheat, rye, barley, etc. It would seem, however, that the context of the institution of the Lord’s Supper indicates the use of unleavened wheat bread. It is not essential that the bread used in the celebration of the sacrament be unleavened, but it is a custom of long-standing in the Lutheran Church.51

the apostles, that would not be grounds to declare all other practice, such as the use of leavened bread or bread from other grains, to invalidate the Lord’s Supper. Wheat bread has not been commanded. Unleavened bread has not been commanded. Breads from barley, rye, or other grains have not been forbidden. “No one is to command or prohibit anything which he [our Lord] has neither commanded nor forbidden.”52 The position of Luther and other fathers is correct. To hold otherwise introduces dissension and division into the church and risks a return to the kind of ritualistic understanding of the Sacrament as continues in the Roman Church today.

To summarize, artos may refer to any kind of grain bread.

Validity is not the only question, however. We also hold that it is helpful to distinguish between what is customary and what is innovative. And while our cul-

Response

ture tends to value innovation over custom, that is not the case throughout the church’s history or, for that matter, in the Lutheran Church. In the midst of nec-

With regard to the substitution of non-wheat for wheat bread in the Sacrament,

essary changes, the Lutheran Reformation steadfastly held to countless tradi-

the Commission believes it is helpful to uphold some important distinctions. First,

tions. Tradition is not ironclad, of course. For example, the church at some point

we would distinguish between practices that are required for a valid Communion

went from the use of a loaf that required breaking to individual broken morsels

and those that are condemned because they prevent a right and salutary sacra-

to individually made hosts—at least in the Western Church. Yet these changes

mental service. Paul condemned the twisted practice of Corinth with its self-ab-

all came to be affirmed both explicitly and implicitly and were then handed on to

sorbed feasting and drunkenness, saying, “It is not the Lord’s supper that you eat”

further generations.

(1 Cor. 11:20). To correct this he delivered again what the Lord requires: that bread and wine be blessed and received according to the declaratory words of Christ:

Emerging from within this kind of tradition, Lutherans were insistent that they

“This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” And, “This cup

would not forsake the doctrine of the church catholic and so were favorably dis-

is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance

posed toward church traditions. So Lutherans retained the liturgy as it was handed

of Me” (vv. 24–25). The Lord’s Supper is exactly what Christ promises—His true

down, making changes only where a practice contradicted the Word of God (AC

body and blood for the forgiveness of sins—so long as “bread and wine are taken,

XXIV 1–9; XXVI 40; see also Ap XXIV). Custom was valued highly for the sake of

consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord’s death is shown

good order, but also critically so that none should suppose it merits forgiveness

forth” (FC SD VII 84).

(Ap XV 1–7). In keeping with this the Commission strongly encourages churches to continue the custom of using unleavened wheat hosts in the Lord’s Supper,

But what of the kind of bread that is employed? Does non-wheat bread invalidate

although our pastors and churches should be reminded that this custom is for

the Sacrament? No. To make such a judgment is to go beyond what the Word of

the sake of good order and does not mean that other practices—such as the use

God makes necessary and to forbid what God does not forbid. Even if it could be

of leavened bread or bread made from other grains—make the Sacrament invalid.

proven that only unleavened wheat bread was used in the Sacrament by Jesus and

Since the use of unleavened wheat hosts has been the nearly uniform practice

Norbert H. Mueller, George Kraus, eds., Pastoral Theology (Concordia Publishing House, 1990), 96. They go on to contrast “the generic bread” with “a specific ‘fruit of the vine’: wine,” 96–97.

AE 40:133.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

of LCMS congregations throughout recent history, to change this would result in

NCGS.55 The only known treatment is dietary—“a lifelong adherence to a strict

needless confusion.

gluten-free diet.”56 Most gastroenterologists recommend that a CD patient con-

There remains the pastoral question of how the spiritual needs of Christians with

sume less than 50 milligrams of gluten each day for adults and less for children to remain symptom free. However, as little as 10 milligrams of gluten causes intesti-

celiac disease or gluten intolerance are to be addressed: What is the most appropriate pastoral care for individuals with a diagnosed medical consideration like CD

nal abnormalities in some patients.57

that makes the reception of the bread in the Lord’s Supper cause physical harm?

The average communion wafer contains about 22 milligrams of gluten. As such,

There is something of a parallel here with the question of the potential danger

it may be consumed without triggering symptoms by most who suffer from CD

or NCGS. The operative word is “may,” however, and many individuals do suffer

to an alcoholic in receiving the wine of the Lord’s Supper. We recall the coun-

problems from even such a small amount. What options can be considered for

sel offered by the CTCR earlier in this document, together with the Synod’s 1998 Res. 3-16B, which both acknowledge the need for pastoral discretion. Acceptable

such individuals in light of no specific direction from Scripture?

suggestions for pastoral care in the case of alcoholism included diluting the wine

Decisions regarding these alternatives should remain a matter of pastoral discre-

and intinction, but the Commission also acknowledged that in some cases there

tion in consultation with those who suffer. However, several options may be sug-

may be “no fully satisfactory answer” to the question of how best to respond to

gested for consideration by pastors and members with CD/NCGS. We list them in

alcoholism.

order of preference after due consideration by the Commission.

While both alcoholism and CD are conditions plaguing individual Christians, they

Perhaps the single best option is to use low-gluten wheat hosts. The North Amer-

must be distinguished. Alcoholism is understood as “a disease characterized by

ican Society for the Study of Celiac Disease found these hosts to be “safe for con-

compulsive decision-making, impulsive behavior and relapse” and thus a men-

sump tion by celiac disease patients.”58

tal health disorder.54 CD is a physical disorder, that is, an autoimmune disease in

A second option is to receive only a fragment of the normal host, which there by

which gluten triggers an attack on the small intestines, potentially leading to many

reduces the amount of gluten consumed. This may present practical problems in

other serious physical conditions.

distribution and reception, however.

The danger of gluten is real for individuals with CD, although it was unknown

A third option is to use non-wheat, gluten-free hosts made from rice flour or an-

prior to World War II, when wheat shortages resulted in vastly improved health

other grain. (Even though we are here recommending low-gluten hosts, an al-

outcomes for celiac patients. Over time the practice of following a gluten-free diet expanded beyond celiacs and also for those with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), about 1 percent of all people, to include many people without CD or

It is important to distinguish the challenge of CD from miss io logical questions—such as whether in Asian countries a rice host would be preferred over a wheat host.

“Is Alcoholism a Mental Illness?” Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, October 9, 2019, https://www .hazel den betty ford.org/articles/why-is-alcoholism-classified-as-a-mental-illness#:~:text=Since%20 1956%2C%20the%20American%20Medical,making%2C%20impulsive%20behavior%20and%20 relapse.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Jacqueline Howard, “Gluten-Free Diets: Where Do We Stand?,” CNN Health, updated March 10, 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/health/gluten-free-diet-history-explain er/index.html.

“What Is Celiac Disease?” Celiac Disease Foundation, https://celiac.org/about-celiac-disease/ what-is-celiac-disease/ (accessed September 23, 2024).

Inna Spector Cohen et al., “Gluten in Celiac Disease—More or Less?” NIH National Library of Medicine, January 28, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6363368/#:~:text=studied%20 the%20long%2Dterm%20effect,communion%20wafer)%20prevented%20histological%20recovery.

“NASSCD Confirms Use of Low-Gluten Host for Catholic Mass,” Celiac Disease Foundation, September 1, 2017, https://celiac.org/2017/09/01/nasscd-statement-use-low-gluten-host-catholic-mass/#:~ :text=Accordingly%2C%20considering%20the%20total%20weight,safe%20in%20various%20 clinical%20studies. This option has another potential benefit, namely, that such low-gluten wheat hosts could be used for the entire congregation and not only for people with CD/NCGS.

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

ter native recommended by the Roman Catholic Church, it is important to state forthrightly that we disagree with the Roman view that the use of bread made by another grain invalidates the Sacrament.) However, we emphasize that caution is necessary if the third option is employed. Gluten-free “bread” for Communion is Other starches are used instead (e.g., potatoes, garbanzos, tapioca, palm fruit oil,

cellulose, sunflower). The CTCR urges congregations that decide to use non-glu-

2023 Res. 5-15 instructed the Commission “to take up these concerns.” To summa-

offered now by many vendors, but in many cases it is made without grain flour.

ten bread to ensure that the alternative hosts are made from actual grain crops.

rize the results of our study herein we Strongly reaffirm the long-standing LCMS understanding that only wine, of whatever alcohol content, should be used in the consecration of the Lord’s Supper; Recommend against the use of pre filled wine and wafer sets in the Lord’s Supper because of potential confusion and the potential encouragement of bad Communion practices; and Suggest that the medical needs of celiac patients and others with gluten intolerance may best be met through the use of low-gluten wheat hosts, or if that is not possible, the use of hosts made from another grain crop.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper WHEREAS, Both theological faculties of the LCMS have offered opinions (Gutachten) (cf. Concordia Theological Quarterly 45:1/2 [Jan./Apr., 1981], 77–80; Theological Observer 17:1 [Jan. 1991], 4–6) supporting the use of wine, or reduced-alcohol wine, offering the clear teaching of the Evangelical Lutheran Church with

regard to this matter from the Scriptures, the Confessions, and the teaching of the church; and WHEREAS, The Synod has spoken in 1998 Res. 3-16B “To Affirm Use of Bread

RESOLUTION 3-1659

and Wine in the Sacrament of the Altar”; therefore be it Resolved, That the congregations be encouraged to use only wine for the Sacrament; and be it further

Overture 3-52 (CW, p. 172)

Resolved, That the theological faculties of our seminaries be commissioned to

WHEREAS, A number of congregations in the Synod have introduced grape

offer guidelines to pastors and congregations in meeting the needs of those who

juice for use in the Sacrament of the Altar; and

feel they cannot drink wine; and be it finally

WHEREAS, The clear statements of our Confessions instruct us that “As the

Resolved, That all action taken in this resolution shall be used to help carry

Words of Institution of Christ expressly state: while at the table during the Supper,

out “The Great Commission” and shall not in any way detract or distract from the

he distributed natural bread and wine to his disciples” (FC SD VII 64); and

primary mission of God’s kingdom here on earth. We will remember 1-02!

WHEREAS, The use of an element other than wine is an alien practice in the

Action: Adopted as amended (11)

churches of the Augsburg Confession and brings about doubt whether the Sacra-

(This resolution was first discussed during session 10. The fifth whereas as presented

ment is offered or not; and

by the committee, WHEREAS, Both theological faculties of the LCMS have offered opinions

WHEREAS, “Since Christ used and sanctified no other element for this Sac-

(Gutachten) to the contrary (cf. “Opinion of the Department of Systematic Theology: The Fruit

rament; since no place in Scripture which treats of the Lord’s Supper mentions

of the Vine in the Sacrament of the Altar,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 45:1/2 [Jan./April.,

even a single other element; since it befits the true disciples of Christ to abide by

1981], 77–80; Department of Systematic Theology, Concordia Seminary, “Is ‘Non-Alcoholic Wine’

His ordinance and institution, John 8:31; since the promise of Christ concerning

Really Wine?” (Theological Observer, Concordia Journal 17:1 [Jan. 1991], 4–6), offering the

the sacramental reception of His body and blood is expressly dependent upon the

clear teaching of the Evangelical Lutheran Church with regard to this matter from the Scriptures,

bread and wine; and finally, since bread and wine are the essential elements of the

the Confessions, and the teachers of the church; and, was amended by replacing it with the para-

holy Lord’s Supper, it follows that under no circumstances can or should one sub-

graph included in the adopted resolution. A substitute resolution, To Encourage Use of Fruit

st it ute elements, which might be comparable, in place of bread and wine” (Johann

of Vine in Lord’s Supper, was considered by the delegates when this resolution was brought

Gerhard, A Comprehensive Explanation of Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper [trans.

back by the committee in session 11: WHEREAS, Any guidelines for celebrating the Lord’s Sup-

Elmer M. Hohle; Repristination Press, 2000], 228–29); and

per must originate in God’s Word; and WHEREAS, The Constitution of the Synod, Article II, refers to “The Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice”; and WHEREAS, God’s Word says in Luke 22:17–18, “And

taking the cup and giving thanks He said, ‘Take this and distribute it among yourselves. For I say to

2001 Convention Proceedings, 141–42.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

you that I will certainly not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes’”; and WHEREAS, God’s Word says in Mark 14:24–25, “And He said to them, this is My blood of the covenant which is being poured out on behalf of many. Truly I say to you that I will certainly not any longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God”; and

WHEREAS, God’s Word says in Matthew 26:27–29, “And taking a cup and giving thanks He gave to them saying, drink of it all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant being poured out for the many for forgiveness of sins. And I say to you that I will certainly not drink of the fruit of the vine until that day whenever I drink with you anew in the kingdom of My Father”; and WHEREAS, the

Opinion of the Department of Systematic Theology60

word wine (oinos) is used in the New Testament 33 times, but never in relation to the Lord’s Supper; and WHEREAS, God’s Word only uses “the fruit of the vine” in regards to the content of the

The Fruit of the Vine in the Sacrament of the Altar

cup; therefore be it Resolved, That the congregations be encouraged to use only the fruit of the vine as one of the elements for the Sacrament. The substitute motion was defeated and the original

The classic definition of the Lord’s Supper was given by Luther: “It is the true body

motion was adopted as amended in session 10 [yes: 814; no: 184]. The final resolve is added

and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to

as required by Res. 1-02, adopted by the convention at an earlier session.)

eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.” Luther cites Matthew (26:26–29), Mark (14:22–25), Luke (22:15–20), and the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23–29) as Scriptural proof for the institution, nature, and meaning of the Sacrament of the Altar. In recent years some have raised the question whether grape juice might be substituted for wine in the Sacrament in view of the fact that the texts do not expressly state “wine,” but “fruit of the vine” or “cup.” The reasoning is that grape juice should be an allowable substitute for wine in sacramental use, since grape juice can rightly be termed “fruit of the vine.” The Scriptural texts leave no doubt that Christ was celebrating the Passover meal with His disciples. Among the foodstuffs on the table would have been unleavened bread and wine. As regards the latter, it was without question the fermented product of the grape vine, in view of the fact that this was the spring of the year, probably April. Moreover, wine was the customary drink of the Jews at solemn festival meals, the peri hag ge ph en (liturgical Hebrew for “fruit of the vine”). There can be no doubt then, as Lenski points out, that “this fruit of the vine”—with emphasis on the this—which the Passover cup contained “shuts out any and all other products of the vine save actual wine and thwarts all modern efforts that speak

Concordia Theological Quarterly 45, nos. 1–2 (1981): 77–80.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

of un fermented grape juice, raisin tea, or diluted grape syrup” (Commentary on

22, 1862; 21a, 608). He noted, too, that the Sacrament arians, for all their wild no-

Matthew, [p. 1007]). The point is that “fruit of the vine” is a technical term which

tions concerning the meaning of the Sacrament, were at least agreed on one point,

in the stated contexts can have no other meaning than wine. The church has never,

viz., that the bread was bread, and the wine, wine (St. L. 20, 1773). While he consid-

from that day forward, felt at liberty to alter the solemn testament given by Christ

ered it an adiaphoron whether water was mixed with the wine, Luther’s personal

in conjunction with the bread and the wine of the Sacrament (cf. Matt. 28:20; Gal.

emphasis was on natural wine, without additional diluting or mixing with water

3:15). Whenever such altering or substitution was introduced, it was promptly re-

(St. L. 19, 258). Luther noted that the Scriptures did not specify whether the wine

pu dia ted, lest any doubt be cast upon the validity of the sacrament as Christ in-

should be red or white (though it was to be of or from the grape vine), nor whether

stituted it.

the bread was to be of wheat or barley flour or another grain (St. L. 20, 188). These

In an article dealing with the “Archaeology of the Sacraments” (CTM, X [1939], p.

matters were adiaphora, as were also the quantity and shape of the host or bread,

328), P. E. Kretzmann avers: “There never was any doubt in the minds of the teach-

manner of distribution, and other externals or usages connected there with.

ers of the Church as to the meaning of the expression [fruit of the vine]. For this

Sometime during the winter of 1542–43 Luther was asked whether a sick person,

reason they resented the use of any substitute for wine.” The consensus is virtually

wishing to have the Sacrament but unable because of nausea to use wine, could be

unbroken. The chief quibble seems to have been whether water was to be added

given something else in place of the wine. According to Kaspar Hey den reich, who

to the wine. This Jewish custom was followed later in the Roman Church, on the

recorded the conversation, Luther replied (WA 74, TR 5, 5509; emphasis added):

grounds that this action symbolized the uniting of the people with Christ in the

The question has often been put to me; but I have always responded as follows: Nothing else but wine should be used. If wine cannot be taken, then let the matter rest that way, in order that nothing new is done or introduced. Must a person who is dying receive the sacrament yet? In times past it was said that he who received the one kind might consider himself to have partaken of both kinds. Why do we not rather say: If you receive nothing, consider yourself to have received both?

priest’s celebration of the Mass and on the fact that blood and water flowed from the side of the crucified Christ. The Lutheran Confessions stand as a phalanx behind Luther’s simple and beautifully clear definition in the Small Catechism, “under . . . the wine.” There is not a single concession, nor any implication, that anything else was ever to be substituted or understood for “wine.” The Small and Large Catechisms enjoy the support on this point of the Augsburg Confession (Article X), the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Article X), the Smalcald Articles (III, vi), and the brilliant exposition and defense of the Lord’s Supper in the Formula of Concord and its Epitome (Article VII). There is total concurrence that in the Lord’s Supper Christ

Clearly Luther rejected any idea of substitution for the materia terre str is. Hence the

“offers His disciples natural bread and natural wine” (FC VII 64). Countless other

barbed re duct io ad absurd um above, suggesting that then a person take or receive

references in the Confessions attest the same fact.

nothing and just simply believe that he has received something.

Luther’s many writings on the Sacrament of the Altar also bespeak the same con-

Luther’s stance, as also that of the Confessions, is upheld by all Lutheran theo-

sistency of usage. There was no substitute for wine in the Sacrament. For Luther,

logians. (Cf. Baier-Walther, Compendium, p. 498; N. Hunnius, Epitome, p. 208; F.

of course, Christ’s precious gift of His true body and blood in the Sacrament was

Pieper, Christian Dogmatics 3, p. 354; T. Engelder, Popular Symbolics, p. 93; J. T. Muel-

the pre-eminent thing, but never apart from the stated bread and wine. He advised

ler, Christian Dogmatics, p. 525; Ad. Hoenecke, Dogmatik 4, p. 115; E. Hove, Christian

those who had doubts or misgivings about receiving both kinds in the Sacrament

Doctrine, pp. 340f; et al.) Martin Chemnitz, the Lutheran Church’s greatest theolo-

to forego reception for the time being. That they could do without sinning (St. L.

gian in the generation after Luther, wrote definitively of the Sacrament of the Altar

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

in his En chi rid ion, in his famous Examen Concilii Tridentini, and in his beautiful De

to be for our spiritual well-being, for the forgiveness of sins.

Coena Sacra. As with Luther there is no question in Chemnitz’s mind as to the pre-

Any substitution for the Scripturally stated elements is especially offensive be-

scribed elements, bread and wine; Holy Scripture clearly teaches them.

cause it yields to the intrusion of Reformed theology and practice into the Lutheran

Nor ought the question be raised for dispute in our day. Those who do so, that is,

Church. It is to be expected that those who hold the Lord’s Supper to be a sym-

argue that “fruit of the vine” should also allow for the use of grape juice, processed

bol ical eating and drinking will have little difficulty substituting other elements

or un processed, are clearly making this suggestion for other reasons than on Scrip-

for the bread and wine. This has been true in some Reformed circles. Needless to

tural grounds. The idea of insinuating or substituting grape juice (or something

say, the strength, or alcoholic content of the wine, is not the issue, as long as natural

else) for wine is of sectarian background, stemming specifically from religious

grape wine is used. This, therefore, rules out some bizarre concoctions, or mix-

bodies which pledge total abstinence from all liquids that have alcoholic content.

tures, which are sometimes sold as wine, such as grape juice mixed with alcoholic

There is no ground for the notion that the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper con-

spirits distilled from grain.

tributes to alcoholism or even threatens the so-called alcoholic. The sin of drunk-

We strongly urge, therefore, lest confusion be multiplied, offense be given, con-

enness, like adultery, homosexuality, etc., is clearly exposed in Scripture as serious

sciences and peace within the church be disturbed, that Lutheran pastors and

(1 Cor. 6:10); but the source of the evil in each such case of sin is man’s own de-

people continue a consistent practice in support of the Scripturally designated

praved, evil heart. Even though some may argue on scientific grounds that certain

elements in Holy Communion, especially as regards the use of wine, “the fruit of

individuals are naturally and constitutionally more inclined to alcoholism, for ex-

the vine,” which Christ instituted when He gave to His church this new testament

ample, than others, this still would not remove the onus of sin. By virtue of his

in His blood.

sinful nature man is prone to all manner of sin, but Scripture nowhere allows us to teach that man is, as it were, biologically programmed by God to be so and so. This would virtually remove from man the responsibility for his sin and place it on God, something totally repugnant to Scriptural teaching. We may be sure that Christ, who knew perfectly what was in man (John 2:25), would not have instituted anything, including the Lord’s Supper and the use of wine, if it in any way would contribute to man’s delinquency. The Apostle Paul’s pastoral practice also underscores this fact (l Cor. 11). The wine in the Lord’s Supper threatens no sinner who comes in repentance and faith, but consoles and lifts him up with the precious gift of the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins and gives him strength for godly living. This is the only teaching Scripture supports. Those who simply “prefer” to receive grape juice instead of wine should be led to see that their “preference” is in violation of Scripture’s own clear teaching and that they are there by making the Sacrament an uncertain matter, if in fact not invalid. Moreover, it is to be feared that such tampering with the Sacrament may in the final analysis involve a deeper error, the relegating of the Lord’s Supper to a mere memorial meal instead of the blessed means of grace that Christ has constituted it

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper WHEREAS, The Augsburg Confession describes the administration of the Lord’s Supper in the context of a physically gathered assembly (Augsburg Confession [AC] VII 1; XXIV 36–39); and WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations and the sys-

tematic theology departments of both seminaries issued opinions that unequivocally and unanimously argued against the practice of online or virtual Communion

To Affirm In-Person Communion RESOLUTION 5-08A61

and affirmed the administration of Holy Communion in person by the pastor; and WHEREAS, The Lutheran Confessions (Formula of Concord [FC] Solid Declaration [SD] VII) indicate that the proper use of the Sacrament includes a unified consecration, distribution, and reception, none of which are to be severed from

Overtures 5-11–20 (CW, 293–300)

the other:

WHEREAS, In the wake of the pandemic, congregations throughout the

However, this blessing, or the recitation of the words of Christ’s institution alone, does not make a Sacrament if the entire action of the Lord’s Supper, as it was instituted by Christ, is not kept. (For example, it is not kept when the consecrated bread is not distributed, received, and partaken of, but is enclosed, sacrificed, or carried about.) Christ’s command “This do” must be observed un separated and inviolate. (This embraces the entire action or administration in this Sacrament. In an assembly of Christians, bread and wine are taken, consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord’s death is shown forth at the same time.) St. Paul also places before our eyes this entire action of the breaking of bread or of distribution and reception (1 Cor. 10:16).

Synod sought to provide spiritual care to their congregations when public health measures prohibited gathering for corporate worship services; and WHEREAS, The Lord Jesus, with words and actions spoken and carried out by Him in the direct and physical presence of His disciples, instituted Holy Communion as a communal meal through which His body and blood are distributed under the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation (Matt. 26:26–28); and WHEREAS, In speaking of the Lord’s Supper, Holy Scripture does not endorse a spiritual or virtual fellowship, but rather a physical, communal gathering as the apostle Paul describes when he writes to the church in Corinth, “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for your judgment” (1 Cor. 11:33–34a); and WHEREAS, The Epistle to the Hebrews states, “And let us consider how to

yet the practice of online or virtual Communion would interject a spatial, tem-

stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is

poral, and technological gap between the consecration and the distribution and

the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the

reception; and

Day drawing near” (Heb. 10:24–25); and

WHEREAS, The pastoral office is responsible for oversight of the administration of the Sacrament in accordance with the keys conferred upon the pastor by

virtue of his call (AC XIV; Walther’s Theses on the Ministry V and VII); and

2023 Convention Proceedings, 152–53.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

WHEREAS, The Sacrament of the Altar has been established by our Lord ac-

congregations who continue to practice online Communion after due fraternal

cording to His Words of Institution, commanding literally “This keep on doing”

admonition be subject to appropriate ecclesiastical supervision; and be it further

(Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), which indicates that this use of the Sacrament should

Resolved, That the Synod in convention clearly and unequivocally reject and

be kept according to His institution, and that “nothing is a sacrament without the

condemn the practice of virtual (online) Communion; and be it finally

appointed use” as set forth by those same Words of Institution (FC SD VII 73) and

Resolved, That those who are hindered for a time from bodily participation

these texts (and all related) require serious study by the church; and

in Holy Communion be encouraged to content themselves with the power of

WHEREAS, No theological justification for the novel practice of online or vir-

the Word, remembrance of their Baptism, and the exercise of faith in the Lord

tual Communion has existed within the Synod or in the Lutheran tradition nor has

Jesus Christ.

been advanced in the circles advocating for it on the basis of the principally rele-

Action: Adopted (8)

vant texts (sedes doc tri nae) of Holy Scripture or of the Lutheran Confessions; and

It was moved but failed to strike the final resolve. Upon closure of debate, as suggest-

WHEREAS, The Synod has historically recognized the need for collegial de-

ed by the chair, the resolution was adopted [Yes: 842; No: 140]. Pacific Southwest District

bate, collaborative decision-making, and consensus-building, enshrining “[t]he

President Michael Gibson addressed the convention, requesting patience for district presi-

example of the apostolic church (Acts 15:1–31)” in the Preamble of its Constitution

dents as they continue to work with perhaps a dozen churches remaining in the practice of

and by adopting a process whereby those principles may be observed with respect

online communion.

to the adoption of doctrinal statements in Bylaw 1.6.2 (b); and WHEREAS, The practice of online Communion has created confusion and concern whether such observance of Holy Communion is pleasing to God and in accordance with His Word; and WHEREAS, The uniformity in practice from the foundation of the Synod has long been considered desirable (1847 Constitution Articles I 3, II 4, IV 5, V 14) and remains an endeavor toward which congregations are encouraged to strive (Const. Art. II 7); therefore be it Resolved, That we commend the desires of faithful pastors to care for their flocks in a time of pandemic, granting charity and latitude to our brothers in the office due to the emergency nature of the situation confronting us all; and be it further Resolved, That the Synod’s district presidents and those who assist them be counseled and urged to instruct our pastors and congregations on the basis of Holy Scripture’s exhortation to gather in person to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and on the basis of the examples of the Augsburg Confession Articles VII and XXIV, to refrain from the practice of online Communion, ensuring that those pastors and

At its 2023 convention, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod adopted Resolution 5-15, “To Uphold Proper Elements and Reverential Administration of the Lord’s Supper,” addressing concerns about the practice of the Lord’s Supper. This report by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations seeks to address the three specific “concerns” about the practice of the Lord’s Supper identified there in: first, the substitution of grape juice for wine; second, the use of pre filled communion cup and wafer sets; and third, the substitution of non-wheat for wheat hosts. In this report, the CTCR addresses each of these practices from a confessional Lutheran theological and pastoral perspective so that our practice would fully align with our confession of the Lord’s Supper as instituted by our Lord Jesus. It searches the Scriptures and traces the practices of the church through the ages, taking heed of Martin Luther’s words: “No one is to command or prohibit anything which [Christ] has neither commanded nor forbidden” (AE 40:133).

RELIGION / Christianity / Lutheran

092635