# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2026_S257 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod 257 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 indifferent 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 indifferent 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- 44 Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II, Chemnitz’s Works, trans. Fred Kramer (Concordia Publishing House, 1978), 540. 45 Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, American-Lutheran Pastoral Theology, Walther’s Works, ed. David W. Loy, trans. Christian C. Tiews (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), 168. 46 “The History of German Bread: A Crusty Chronicle,” German Culture, https://germanculture.com.ua/ baking-recipes/history-of-german-bread/ (accessed June 20, 2023). 47 Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 354. 48 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”: 29 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod 49 CTCR, The Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, 15–16. 50 CTCR, The Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, 16. 30 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 51 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. 52 31 AE 40:133. 32 2026 Convention Workbook