LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 254

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

254

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
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-

derstanding 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

22

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
.chicagotribune.com/1996/04/19/communion-in-a-cup-has-its-converts-naysayers/.

23

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.

24

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

25

17
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).

18
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 prefilled 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 communi-

“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”?

26

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, thereby,
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
19

2026 Convention Workbook

20