Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 292

2026 Convention Workbook
257
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS  —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/two.lnum/nine.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
This general perspective with regard to the altar bread has been passed down 
in Lutheran theology. Martin Chemnitz notes former debates about the 
bread—“Whether it should be of wheat, whether leavened or unleavened”—but 
adds that “the church judged correctly that these things are free and not of ne-
cessity 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 
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 
Dogmatics.
47 John H. C. Fritz paraphrases Walther’s statement, listing the same 
grains in the same order. 48
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).
/three.lnum/zero.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
In 1983 the CTCR continued in the same vein, but with one variation. In consider-
ing “The Elements” to be used in the Lord’s Supper, the CTCR states:
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.
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 distri-
bution should reflect reverence for the elements, there is no 
specific guidance on the size or shape of the wafer or por-
tion.
49
Note that the CTCR here also views the type of flour to be an indifferent thing, but 
concludes that “unleavened bread should also be used today” (emphasis added). 50
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-
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”:
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.
/three.lnum/one.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
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
To summarize, artos may refer to any kind of grain bread.
Response
With regard to the substitution of non-wheat for wheat bread in the Sacrament, 
the Commission believes it is helpful to uphold some important distinctions. First, 
we would distinguish between practices that are required for a valid Communion 
and those that are condemned because they prevent a right and salutary sacra-
mental service. Paul condemned the twisted practice of Corinth with its self-ab-
sorbed feasting and drunkenness, saying, “It is not the Lord’s supper that you eat” 
(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: 
“This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” And, “This cup 
is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance 
of Me” (vv. 24–25). The Lord’s Supper is exactly what Christ promises—His true 
body and blood for the forgiveness of sins—so long as “bread and wine are taken, 
consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord’s death is shown 
forth” (FC SD VII 84).
But what of the kind of bread that is employed? Does non-wheat bread invalidate 
the Sacrament? No. To make such a judgment is to go beyond what the Word of 
God makes necessary and to forbid what God does not forbid. Even if it could be 
proven that only unleavened wheat bread was used in the Sacrament by Jesus and 
51  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.
/three.lnum/two.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
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 Sup-
per. Wheat bread has not been commanded. Unleavened bread has not been com-
manded. 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 oth-
erwise 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.
Validity is not the only question, however. We also hold that it is helpful to dis-
tinguish between what is customary and what is innovative. And while our cul-
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-
essary changes, the Lutheran Reformation steadfastly held to countless tradi-
tions. Tradition is not ironclad, of course. For example, the church at some point 
went from the use of a loaf that required breaking to individual broken morsels 
to individually made hosts—at least in the Western Church. Yet these changes 
all came to be affirmed both explicitly and implicitly and were then handed on to 
further generations.
Emerging from within this kind of tradition, Lutherans were insistent that they 
would not forsake the doctrine of the church catholic and so were favorably dis-
posed toward church traditions. So Lutherans retained the liturgy as it was handed 
down, making changes only where a practice contradicted the Word of God (AC 
XXIV 1–9; XXVI 40; see also Ap XXIV). Custom was valued highly for the sake of 
good order, but also critically so that none should suppose it merits forgiveness 
(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, 
although our pastors and churches should be reminded that this custom is for 
the sake of good order and does not mean that other practices—such as the use 
of leavened bread or bread made from other grains—make the Sacrament invalid. 
Since the use of unleavened wheat hosts has been the nearly uniform practice 
52  AE 40:133.