LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 233

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
South Wisconsin District President Request for an Opinion concerning Shut-in

Communion by a Commissioned Minister

The Request of the District President
In correspondence dated March 10, 2015, the President of the South Wisconsin District
submitted three questions to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR)
concerning the propriety of a commissioned minister consecrating the Lord’s Supper or
distributing reserved elements to shut-ins. The text of the request is as follows:
While it is true that ‘the regularly called and ordained pastors of the church are to officiate at
the administration of Holy Communion’ (TPLS, 17-18), it is only ‘through Christ’s word and its
power’ ̶ not through the mere ‘sound’ or ‘recording’ of the voice of the pastor’ – ‘that Christ’s
body and blood are present in the bread and wine’ (TPLS, 14). [from the CTCR opinion ‘DVD
Consecration’, page 2]
1.) In light of that, Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions (especially Augsburg
XIV) is it appropriate for a commissioned worker (in this case a rostered teacher who
serves as a pastoral care assistant) to consecrate the elements for the Lord’s Supper
when making shut-in visits?
• Is such an action a violation of Augsburg XIV?
2.) In light of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions would it be appropriate for a
commissioned worker (non-ordained) or a lay person to take properly consecrated
elements from the Sunday Worship to the homes of shut-ins for distribution during the
week?
• Clarification: I know that this question has been asked and answered
previously. However, the words of Herman Sasse ring in my years: “Extra
institutionem Christi (“outside of Christ’s institution”) the Sacrament is not
there; consequently, the real presence ceases when the celebration is over.”
Sasse, Herman (2014-01-03). Letters to Lutheran Pastors – Volume 2 (page
155). CPH.
• How are the two positions reconciled?
3.) Are there Scriptural reasons and/or spiritual benefits for the consecration to be
closely connected (either in time or location) to the distribution of the consecrated
elements during the administration of the Sacrament in the Divine Service?
• How do SD VII 75, 83-86 apply to usage of consecrated elements being
distributed by laity apart from the Divine Service where they were properly
consecrated?
• Part of my concern and the reason for the question lies in the following: when
the consecrated elements are distributed apart from the Divine Service where
the institution took place, is the communicant deprived thereby of a critical
aspect of the Gospel which ought to be connected with the distribution of the
Sacrament, viz., the Words of Institution?

233

The Response of the CTCR
The basic theological issues involved in these questions have been addressed (at least in
principle) in previous CTCR documents, including two reports, The Ministry: Offices,
Procedures, and Nomenclature (1981) and Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper (1984),
and multiple opinions, such as “DVD Consecration” (2006), “Communion and Covid-19”
(2020), and “One Little Word Can Fell Him: Addendum to ‘Communion and Covid-19’” (2020).
For the sake of greater clarity and precision, however, the Commission shall respond directly and
succinctly to the questions presented in the request.
Q. 1) In light of that, Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions (especially Augsburg XIV) is
it appropriate for a commissioned worker (in this case a rostered teacher who serves as a
pastoral care assistant) to consecrate the elements for the Lord’s Supper when making shut-in
visits?
AC 14 states that public preaching and the administration of the sacraments is the responsibility
of the ordained minister of the gospel called for that purpose. Auxiliary offices, such as
commissioned ministers, are established in the church to help the pastor in the discharge of his
office, yet those occupying these offices are not authorized to perform the “distinctive functions”
that belong to the pastoral office. 1 As the Commission said in its 1981 report, The Ministry:
Offices, Procedures, and Nomenclature:
Functions that are essentially exercises of the ministry of Word and sacrament should be
performed by those who hold the office of the public ministry. Thus, preaching in the
worship service, leading in public prayer, celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar,
baptisms, wedding and funeral services should be carried out by those who hold the
office of public ministry. (p. 35)
Since the pastor is given responsibility for the administration of the sacraments, and since
consecration belongs to the proper administration of the sacraments, only the pastor should
consecrate the elements for the Lord’s Supper. It is the opinion of the Commission, then, that a
layperson—commissioned minister or otherwise—should not consecrate the elements for the
Lord’s Supper during shut-in visits.
Q. 2) In light of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions would it be appropriate for a
commissioned worker (non-ordained) or a lay person to take properly consecrated elements
from the Sunday worship to the homes of shut-ins for distribution during the week?
For the same reason as above, the CTCR cautioned against the practice of lay persons bringing
the reserved sacrament to shut-ins in Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper: “The chief
consideration regarding such a practice is that the role of the pastor in the sacramental life of the
On the historical understanding of auxiliary offices in the LCMS cf. Cameron Mackenzie, “Helping Offices in the
Church,” The Office of the Holy Ministry. Papers Presented at the Congress on the Lutheran Confessions Itasca,
Illinois, April 10-13, 1996, Crestwood, MO: Luther Academy; Minneapolis: Association of Confessional Lutherans,
1996, 65-82, available at http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/MacKenzie-Helping OfficesChurch.pdf.
1

church should not be displaced” (p. 26). This is especially important because shut-in communion
provides the pastor an opportunity to offer confession and absolution, invite the participation of
family members in communion, and offer pastoral care to his flock.

Q. 3) Are there Scriptural reasons and/or spiritual benefits for the consecration to be closely
connected to the distribution of the consecrated elements during the administration of the
Sacrament?

While this consideration applies to laity performing the distinctive functions of the pastoral
office, another consideration regarding reserving the consecrated sacrament applies to clergy, as
well. Scripturally and confessionally speaking, the administration of the Sacrament of the Altar
is a single action involving three constitutive features: consecration, distribution, and reception.
When Christ instituted this sacrament, he intended that all three features—consecration of the
elements with our Lord’s words (“given thanks”), distribution to the communicant (“gave”),
reception by the communicant (“take, eat”; “drink of it”)—be done in accordance with this Word
(Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Lk. 22:17-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). When the consecrated
sacrament is reserved and later distributed and received, it severs the single unified action which
Christ instituted.

Scripturally speaking, as noted above, the Sacrament of the Altar as instituted by our Lord is
understood as a single action of consecration, distribution, and reception. To sever consecration
from distribution and reception is to—intentionally or unintentionally—disregard the clear words
of Christ when instituting this sacrament. The Commission has addressed this issue repeatedly
but to cite one example, the 2006 opinion on DVD Consecration says this:

The Formula of Concord repeatedly opposes the reservation of the sacrament as an abuse
because the severing of the single action which Christ instituted raises serious questions about
whether the reserved sacrament is in fact the Lord’s Supper. The Formula states that the
sacrament is not rightly administered when “the consecrated bread is not distributed, received or
eaten, but is instead locked up [in the tabernacle], made into a sacrifice, or carried around in a
procession.” 2 It also says: “Apart from this practice, it is not to be regarded as a sacrament – for
example, when in the papistic Mass the bread is not distributed but is made into a sacrifice, or
enclosed [in the tabernacle], or carried about in a procession, or displayed for adoration.” 3
When consecrated elements are set aside in a tabernacle, or any other receptacle, after the end of
the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, doubts are raised precisely because there is no longer a
direct relation for the recipient between their consecration, distribution, and reception. To do so
is to move outside of the parameters of the sacrament as it was instituted by Christ. Outside of
these parameters, there is no certainty. As the Commission said of digital consecration in
“Addendum to Communion and Covid-19”:
We are not able to say with certainty that this would be an invalid Sacrament, but that is
precisely the problem: we cannot be confident of it either. We would instead be troubled
with the question whether this manner of communing is according to Christ’s
institution… We seriously and sincerely wonder whether (in the language of the
Formula) “the entire external, visible administration of the Supper” is indeed “as Christ
established the administration of the Supper (FC SD VII, §86, KW 608).” (p. 12)

The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus with words and actions spoken and carried out
by him in the direct presence of his disciples (Matt. 26:26-28). Throughout history, the
church has sought to be faithful to Christ’s practice in this regard. Pastors speak the
words of institution in the presence of the assembled congregation, thereby giving
assurance that we are “doing this” as our Lord has instructed us to do (Luke 22:19).
Whenever the actual words and actions of the celebrant in consecrating the elements are
intentionally separated (by time, distance, or technological means) from the distribution
and reception, no assurance can be given that our Lord’s instructions are being heeded
and that the body and blood of Christ are actually being given and received for the
forgiveness of sins and the strengthening of faith.
Any separation of consecration from distribution and reception raises doubts about fidelity to the
clear command of Christ in the words of institution and, thus, the validity of the sacrament.
Spiritually speaking, the same argument applies. Where the consecration is separated from
distribution and reception, the certainty of Christ’s body and blood present in the sacrament and,
by extension, the certainty of his promise of forgiveness through the sacrament, are called into
question. Yet it is for this very reason that Christ has given this sacrament—to strengthen faith
and forgive sins through his presence and his promise. The separation of consecration from
distribution and reception—again, whether by time, space, or technological innovation, such as
DVD or digital consecration—detracts from the purpose for which it is instituted, namely, the
strengthening of faith and the forgiveness of sins.
Adopted (unanimously) by the CTCR
December 9, 2022

The practice of reserving the consecrated sacrament for distribution and reception to those who
did not witness its consecration unnecessarily raises doubts regarding its validity as a sacrament
or the benefits it may offer. For these reasons, the Commission urges against the practice of
laypersons (or clergy) communing shut-ins with elements consecrated apart from that
distribution and reception.
2
3

SD FC VII, 83; Kolb/Wengert, 607.
SD FC VII, 87; Kolb/Wengert, 608.

2023 Convention Workbook