Cyberstones-A Lutheran Blog

Comments...

• Apr 02, 2007 08:17:55 Re: Infant Communion - wmcwirla
  113 comments and counting. Rock on, Dave!
  
  
  • Apr 04, 2007 10:55:10 Re: Infant Communion - Eckardt
    This traffic is stunning. Maybe if we keep it up we can get it into The Lutheran Witness or Guinness. Hand over that popcorn.
• Apr 02, 2007 01:11:21 Re: Infant Communion - Laura Frizelle
  Last week I was talking with a friend of mine who is an E.O. priest and he said something that pertains to this discussion. He said that a long time ago (before 1054), bishops were the only ones who did chrismations (E.O. "confirmation" which normally immediately follows baptism and precedes first communion all in the same day). My friend, Fr. Marc, said that because bishops could not logistically be at every baptism, especially in western Europe, people had to wait for chrismation or confirmation. Fr. Marc attributed the practice of delayed confirmation and first communion to this original problem of bishops not being able to travel with ease and frequency.
  
  Kind of interesting.
  
  
• Apr 01, 2007 13:42:12 Re: Infant Communion - Kristofer Carlson
  As a former fundamentalist, I've never understood the practice of giving one Sacrament to infants, yet withholding the other until properly instructed. I accept that there must be a reason, but this has never been adequately explained to me.
  
  Is their a difference between the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and the practice of the Lord's Supper? On the one hand we understand what the Lord’s Supper is, and what its benefits are. But does examining oneself require this level of understanding? There seems to be some difference of opinion about this among Lutherans.
  
  Certainly we accept what the Scriptures and the Confessions say about Eucharist, but its meaning can be obscure. Luther seems to contradict himself on this matter. How is it possible for a person to receive saving faith through baptism, yet not be a Christian? Yet that is the premise of Luther’s statement in the Preface to the Small Catechism regarding “the minimum knowledge required of a Christian" to which he adds, "Whoever does not possess it should not be reckoned among Christians nor admitted to a sacrament" (Preface, 2)” So is Baptism salvific, or is it not?
  
  It sometimes seems to me that we withhold the Sacrament of the Altar from children for the same reason that Fundamentalists withhold Baptism from infants: the mythical "Age of Accountability".
  
  The Didache has nothing regarding infant communion. Neither does it have anything regarding infant baptism. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome has infant baptism, but not infant communion, as the three-year catechumenate had already been established. Of course it is unclear whether Hippolytus was reflecting the traditions of the Apostles, but that is a matter for another discussion.
  
  An interesting article on the subject is below.
  
  The Antiquity of Infant Communion
  ROGER T. BECKWITH
  (From “Age of Admission to the Lord’s Supper,” The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 2 [Winter 1976], pp. 125-27.)
  
  
• Mar 31, 2007 18:05:32 Re: Infant Communion - wmcwirla
  108 comments in a little over 24 hours. Could be a world record in the Lutheran Blogosphere. Way to go, Dave!
• Mar 31, 2007 11:24:04 Re: Infant Communion - Emily H.
  Pr. Petersen, you right about Infant Communion being at the forfront of remembered issues of the preceding generation. After years of being force-fed a diet of bi-monthy Communion congo lines, get your jiggers - any and all welcome, it is my generations deepest desire to know and understand communion in a way that we were not taught. We want to understand the nature of Communion (and the faith of the communicant) and that includes asking the question of "why not infants?". It is not that we would have infant communion instantly imposed on the Church, but we do want an answer. Nor is this merely an issue dreamed up by lazy pastors, for as many here have noted, it is the faithful in many congregations that are pushing the envelope at their pastors. (I have also noted that the discussion has also come up on many lay-person's blogs.) Infant communion and the implications thereof will be the what is remembered of your generation, especially since the other issues that John Frahm and McCain mention will all follow in order of what we believe to be true of Communion.
  
  
  • Mar 31, 2007 12:23:36 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
    I think we have quite a good example of hyperbole here, Emily, and I do not mean any disrespect. Can you please quantify your assertion that this is an issue on "many laypersons' blogs"? How many? 100? 200? I monitor nearly every Lutheran blog out there and have seen this on no more than six.
    
    Where did anything about "lazy pastors" come up? No good pastor I know is lazy, by any stretch of the imagination.
    
    As for the laity wanting answers, they have them: in the Scriptures and the Book of Concord. There is no additional "enlightenment" on the Lord's Supper that you are going to find that provides you anything richer than the treasures of truth as you have them in historic orthodoxy Lutheranism on the Supper. Martin Chemnitz' "The Lord's Supper" being the best thing I've ever read on the Supper, followed by Sasse's "This is my Body."
    
    Why not infants? Because they are not capable of the self-examination and discernment of the Lord's body that is required of those who receive the Holy Supper. This is the Apostle Paul's teaching. This is confirmed by Dr. Luther in his Large Catechism who stipulates that those who are to commune must be able to recite from memory the Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the institution narratives of LC Shorter Preface.20 and be able to say what the Supper is and why they desire it.
    
    Rest assured that your infants and very young children are not being short-changed, or deprived, or being treated as second-class citizens.
    
    Infant communion is not the definiing issue of "our generation" by any means. It may come to define those who obsess on it and are led into error on the point, both themselves and those hearers, but it is not the "defining issue" by any mean, and I hope nobody will lead you to believe that.
    
    A healthy discussion of an earlier age for first communion is one thing, infant communion is quite another. It is not Lutheran because it is not Biblical nor in accord with the Lutheran Confessions. Those who advocate it are not being faithful to Scripture or the Confessions. That is the position of the Lutheran Church. Private speculations and public musings aside, we do not teach, nor support, the practice of communing infants.
    
    You will find this practice in church bodies with a erroneous doctrine of the Gospel, and consequently, the Lord's Supper, but in our church we admit to the table only those who truly do know what the Supper is and why they come.
    • Apr 01, 2007 12:47:24 Re: Infant Communion - Emily H.
      Pr. McCain,
      I confess I fall short of your blog-prowess since I do not have the time or desire to visit nearly every Lutheran blog. And so, the "many" I speak of is not so great as you may accord "many" to mean. You win there. :)
      
      However, my point was that this issue is not only one that "a few dozen pastors debate ...and bring it up from time to time and can engage in a lively conversation" but is also discussed amongst the greater community. (BTW, I said lazy pastors because your description gave me the mental image of some pastors in their lazy moments bringing up the discussion just to have a lively talk and pass the time rather than earnestly looking at the topic. I did not mean to imply that you thought any such pastor lazy. I beg forgiveness in the name of Christ if I did unknowingly offend any readers or yourself.)
      
      A previous generation cannot determine how it will be remembered. I do not see then how you (as a spokesperson for your generation) can say with definity that this will not be the remembered issue of your times. That is the sole discretion of my own generation to determine.
      
      "As for the laity wanting answers, they have them... "
      I say this: I will have greater faith in the words of pastors such as Weedon, Cwirla, Petersen and others who in great love and understanding of my generation's searching desire to hear and learn and ask questions about Communion, even infant Communion, have taken the time to fully, deeply investigate this topic with us and even to see through our eyes. This is not to say that you are unloving in your efforts to win hearts to your side of the discussion. However, Chemnitz, Sasse, and sadly even the Book of Concord are not usually on the normal parishoner's book shelves. So to say to the laity, your answer is there is a lacking explanation of "why?".
      
      "...those who are to commune must be able to recite from memory the Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the institution narratives of LC Shorter Preface.20 and be able to say what the Supper is and why they desire it."
      "To recite from memory" is something that a five year old can do. Are you willing to admit a five-year old to the Supper if they meet the requirements? Why or why not? How early of age are you willing to accept and on what basis (psychological, physical, theological, ect.) do you decide an appropriate age? Would an earlier age be instituted on the views of the individual congregations or by the rule of Synod? If only congregational, how do you soothe the angst that will come up when a young confirmed child communes at a church whose custom is not the same? What appropriate teaching from Scripture and other sources would you use to prove that an earlier confirmation age is indeed laudible as oppsed to the current tradition? Would you create different teaching materials geared toward a younger age group or would you keep the current confirmation materials? How might an earlier first communion affect the current popular view of communion?
      The discussion of earlier communion, something we all seem to agree upon, seems to be getting bypassed. I still find the discussion of infant communion to bear fruits of its own though and should not be merely dismissed as totally out of hand.
      
      "A healthy discussion of an earlier age for first communion is one thing, infant communion is quite another."
      Are you saying that the discussion of infant communion is an unhealthy thing? Maybe I am missing your point. Could you define what you mean by "one thing" and "quite another" as these are general statements?
      
      "...but in our church we admit to the table only those who truly do know what the Supper is and why they come."
      On paper, yes, but not always in practice. Perhaps it is the bad practice of letting Aunt Baptist and Uncle Pentacostal commune that has Gen X asking why not my Newborn LUTHERAN?
      
      Yours in Christ,
      Emily
      
      
• Mar 31, 2007 07:01:18 Re: Infant Communion - Eric Brown
  I find the topic of Infant communion to skate rather closely to how I describe our rational behind closed communion. While I haven't been asked at my congregation why someone's kid can't commune, I have been asked why aunt so-and-so can't. I use the analogy of a car and driver's license.
  
  A car is a great gift. However, it can be dangerous and deadly if misused. Therefore, one does not drive until one has been licensed and taught. Likewise, the Supper is a great gift - one that everyone can benefit from -- however, there is a warning attached to it. Until one has examined one's self (and I as the steward of the mysteries is aware of this) it is not safely administered to this person.
  
  While this analogy is applied to those of other professions of faith, I think it could be applied to those too young to have made confession. Now, I've know 4 year olds who have a good understanding of what the Lord's Supper is (in fact, I think it is easier to believe the supper when one has the faith of a child and stop listening to that harlot dame reason with her seductive whisperings of "how can this be" in one's ears) - but that isn't quite infant.
  
  I'm not quite willing to flat out condemn infant communion (I do see the argument behind it) - but I think it is a less cautious course of action than we ought to take. However, I think waiting until students are rebellious teens to begin education towards communion is overly cautious.
• Mar 31, 2007 06:30:54 Re: Infant Communion - martin
  As one who has gotten caught up in the involved, but I think largely fruitful discussion of the communion of the very young, I'd like also to take a stab at answering Pr. Petersen's original question: "what will the next generation of confessional LCMS Lutherans find disgusting in our generation?"
  
  I actually think it will be just one thing: our widespread failure to distinguish Law from Gospel, or to say exactly the same thing another way: our general failure to live by faith in Christ alone, preferring to live instead by our wits, rules, and works.
  
  I think this Christological failure will be seen in several areas which other posters have already mentioned, such as 1) Church and Ministry 2) Missions/Evangelism 3) Means of Grace 4) Sanctification. I think this disucssion on infant communion is one which does show particularly clearly the gulf that divides even the confessionals and the difficulty we all have in walking by faith in Christ alone rather than by sight and reason and the old dogmaticians... so I agree with Petersen that this issue of communing the very young will be something future ages will stand up and indict us for--because, looking at our answers here, it seems to me our friend Cwirla alone has only and consistently advocated a truly Christ-centered, evangelical answer to this question of infant communion. All the rest of us, myself included, would seem to have veered at least a bit from the evangelical heart of the matter in giving our answer!
  
• Mar 30, 2007 14:52:32 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
  Those who are in favor of communing infants, are you suggesting that we start giving it to them, and then when they get old enough to start asking questions, we instruct them like we do with baptism? Perhaps we should do the same with adults. Just let them start receiving it, and then teach them. Just playing devil's advocate, but why not? Why is it that adults need to be taught about Holy Communion before receiving it, but babies do not? I can understand Baptism--because through Baptism the Holy Spirit creates faith where it was not before. Infant Communion, in my small mind, is a glaring example of ex opere operato.
  • Mar 30, 2007 15:09:37 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
    Paul,
    
    Important questions. The Church has always made some distinctions in how she brings children into the Church from the way she brings adults in. The Synodical Explanation to the Catechism acknowledges as much in regard to the Sacrament of Baptism - see question 245.
    
    What I find fascinating is that at least by the fourth century the Church did not instruct on the Sacrament of the Altar even the adults being brought to the font. Indeed, first they tasted the heavenly food and then they were told about it. I know, it blows our minds. We think: how could they? But for the neophytes, their first "catechization" about the Eucharist was the liturgy they heard after Baptism and then the body and blood of our Lord were imparted to them. After having tasted the heavenly gifts, then followed the mystagogy where Baptism, Chrismation, and the Eucharist were explained in detail for some days, by reflecting back on the rites that they had experienced. That's the fourth century pattern we see in St. Cyril at any rate.
    
    I am not sure how it fits with St. Justin two centuries earlier insisting that only those who agree to our teaching each the Eucharist with us.
    
    But I'm wandering from your basic question: the thought is that catechesis is to be life-long and that at every age there will be a different appreciation for the life-giving Eucharist. I hesitate to speak of the adult appreciation though as greater than the child's. Our Lord's words seem to lead us in the other direction: "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for of such is the kingdom of God." It may be that we spend all of our adulthood returning to the rich faith that we had as children! And at the risk of running by analogy, I do not have to understand how the digestive system functions in order to find icecream very tasty and to want it. :)
    • Mar 30, 2007 15:30:24 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
      I'm familiar with the Mystagogical Catecheses, and when I was taking the class "Liturgical Structures" and reading Harmless' book "Augustine and the Catechumenate" I found myself thinking that perhaps this is why we don't just accept what earlier Christians did just because they were earlier. One of the problems I see with the RCIA (which is supposed to be based on this earlier model) is that the emphasis is almost ALL on the experience, not on the benefits and the Words.
      
      I am sympathetic to your analogy, and can understand the logic. And certainly I would not suggest that one had to have a theologian's understanding of the Eucharist in order to receive its benefits. But do we at least agree that faith is necessary for worthy reception? If we can agree on that, then that is a start. Because if faith is necessary for worthy reception, and the alternative (no faith=damnation) then I would sure hate to give something to my infant that could be spiritually harmful, just in the "hopes" that he/she had faith. I could not in good conscience give the Sacrament to a person until they could in some demonstrable way indicate that (1) they had faith in the words and (2) that they wanted the Sacrament.
      
      Are you willing to risk giving your infant something to his/her damnation? I'm not.
      • Apr 04, 2007 04:38:42 Re: Infant Communion - Sweaver

        Quote:

        Because if faith is necessary for worthy reception, and the alternative (no faith=damnation) then I would sure hate to give something to my infant that could be spiritually harmful, just in the "hopes" that he/she had faith. I could not in good conscience give the Sacrament to a person until they could in some demonstrable way indicate that (1) they had faith in the words and (2) that they wanted the Sacrament.
        
        Are you willing to risk giving your infant something to his/her damnation? I'm not.

        Hi Paul.
        
        Faith is necessary, and infants have it. It would not be a guess for you or any other faithful parent as to whether your infant has faith. I tend to agree with you, though, and am not completely convinced INFANTS should be communed. I want to believe it. I'm just not there yet. But I do think and know that two-year-olds can desire it.
        
        - Wade
        
      • Mar 30, 2007 17:39:54 Re: Infant Communion - Susan Gehlbach
        Pr Beisel, did I misunderstand something? I think you just said that you don't know whether your baptized children are Christians. Well, at least, you don't know until they can express to you that they are.
        • Mar 30, 2007 18:10:39 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
          No, you read into what I said. I said that we do not know if a child "has faith in those words [of the Sacrament]." Don't you think someone has to know the sense and meaning of a set of words before they are able to have faith in them? How does an infant know the difference between the mush that you give them at the breakfast table and the mush that you give them in the Sacrament of the Altar (if you do it like the Eastern Church). Is it only necessary for adults to know the difference between ordinary bread and sacramental bread and somehow infants get a "bye"?
          
          At the very minimum, I think that a Christian ought to be able to distinguish between common bread and sacramental. I think that is possible at a very early age.
          • Apr 03, 2007 11:56:35 Re: Infant Communion - fr john w fenton

            Quote:

            Don't you think someone has to know the sense and meaning of a set of words before they are able to have faith in them?

            No. And the rite of infant baptism (i.e., interrogating the faith of the infant before baptism) is one piece of evidence supporting the answer "No."
          • Mar 30, 2007 22:05:14 Re: Infant Communion - Susan Gehlbach
            Okay, I think I see what you're saying. Thanks. When you said you "hope" the child has faith, you didn't mean faith in Christ, but "faith in these words..."
            
            I guess the part that confused me was when you said "no faith = damnation." So are you saying the child IS a Christian, but you don't know if he "has faith in these words," and if he doesn't, then he would be damned for partaking of the Sacrament. Now did I hear you right?
            • Mar 31, 2007 02:04:04 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
              John Kleinig makes an interesting connection in his Leviticus commentary between the priests of the OT and the baptized. One of the chief duties of the OT priests was to distinguish between the "clean and the unclean, the holy and the unholy." You find this constantly repeated throughout Leviticus. The language used by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11, says Kleinig, is very similar to that of Leviticus when the Apostle speaks about "discerning the Body." His point is that it is the duty/responsibility of all the baptized (NT priests) to distinguish between the holy and unholy/clean and unclean, especially with regard to the elements of the Lord's Supper.
              
              I am against the idea that we should give kids the impression that they do not need the Sacrament until they are 14. This is an abomination. But I also do not believe that we should consider a young child "less of a Christian" just because he is not yet partaking of the Lord's Supper. That seems to be the idea, that the Lord's Supper is *so* essential to the Christian life that until a person begins receiving it, he is somehow being "spiritually starved to death." "As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the Word."
              
              I think Luther is right in this regard, that the Lord's Supper was added for the special strengthening and comfort of a person's conscience, so that I as a Christian might be all the more convinced that Christ died for my sins out of great love for me and His heavenly Father.
            • Mar 31, 2007 01:46:34 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
              Susan, that is exactly what I was trying to say, and probably didn't say it as clearly as I should. Certainly the promises of baptism are clear and should not be doubted in the least bit.
      • Mar 30, 2007 15:40:27 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
        Paul,
        
        Of course faith is necessary! The question is, faith of what sort? Fides directa or reflexa. Remember that when Andreae spoke to the Patriarch, he told him that the Lutherans did not commune the infants, because they had been baptized and so had eaten of Christ spiritually by faith. Connect the dots, then, with FC Ep 18, 19. There is no fear of giving a believing child the Body and Blood of the Savior that they would misuse it. That's something I think we need to worry about with the adults - which is the point Luther makes on his comment on 1 Cor. 11.
        • Mar 30, 2007 17:07:08 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
          Pieper's dogmatic tradition which you allude to is pretty hard to get past for us Lutherans.
          
          I think it should be up to the parents. When the parents (who themselves ought to be well-catechized) think the child is ready, they can present him to the pastor.
          • Mar 30, 2007 17:14:27 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
            Paul,
            
            Pieper does indeed still loom large, but I would not hesitate to say that on the Sacrament of the Altar and the Office of the Ministry he is a mere shadow of the riches of Lutheran Orthodoxy. On either topic, give me Chemnitz anyday.
            
            Yet also Pieper got right the foundational concern: that the Sacrament of the Altar not be denied to any to whom our Lord would have it given. He rests his entire argument that infants are excluded from this upon his reading of 1 Cor. 11 (and in this he follows Gerhard, but I'm not sure about Chemnitz). Luther's read was totally different, however, and if on this point Luther's read is right, then the only reason Lutherans can give for not communing the baptized children is that it was not the custom we inherited. Which leaves some room for discussion about whether or not such a custom should be normative.
            • Mar 30, 2007 21:34:09 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
              Luther did not advocate giving the Sacrament to infants Bill. The Large Catechism nicely provides what Luther and the Church that confesses this catechism teaches about what children are to know before they are communed.
              • Mar 31, 2007 04:01:38 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
                Paul,
                
                I never said Luther advocated it. I said he determined that 1 Cor. 11 didn't exclude them because it wasn't addressed to them. So whatever reasons he had for his reticence about giving it to them was not based at all on "they can't examine themselves." That dog don't hunt, in his opinion.
        • Mar 30, 2007 15:41:42 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
          Ep VII. Sorry.
          • Mar 30, 2007 16:51:13 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
            reflexiva. My goodness! How many mistakes can be made in a single post???
• Mar 30, 2007 14:07:39 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
  This question has come up among us, methinks, because in the last decade or so the Lord's Supper has taken such a central place in our theology and preaching that we are now wondering, if this is such a great thing, why should it be denied to anyone in the body of Christ? I'm not saying that it is a *bad* thing that the Supper has taken such central importance, but even for as highly as Luther spoke of it, it didn't have the same importance to him as baptism and the preaching of the Word. To Luther (and you will find this in various writings) the "Sacrament" (Communion) was added by Jesus for the special comfort and nourishment of the soul, almost like it was an afterthought. Is anyone else familiar with these kind of statements of Luther? I'm sure I've run across some.
  
  In our day, we almost seem to be emphasizing the Lord's Supper above baptism and preaching/the Word, as if the other two were just hoops to jump through so that we can "get to the Sacrament." I find this not a little bit troubling. Not that I am in favor of "rating" the gifts of the Lord in importance, but remember that Jesus says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" NOT "Whoever believes and takes the Sacrament of the Altar will be saved, but whoever does not eat the body and blood of Jesus will be condemned." (That's Mark 16 for you non-exegetical types) :)
  
  • Mar 30, 2007 14:30:05 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
    Luther also recognized that "this Sacrament IS the Gospel." I don't think the problem is with too great an emphasis on the Eucharist; it is with not emphasizing enough what the Eucharist means for our lives of living sacrifice out in the world. The Savior feeds us with His Body and Blood that alive in Him and He in us, we may carry HIM out into the world. THAT'S something I think is a bit lacking among us.
  • Mar 30, 2007 14:19:01 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
    Don't misunderstand me--I think it is a good thing that we have become a much more "means-of-grace" centered group of Christians. I even think that this is influencing the way some of the pastors who weren't schooled by Scaer, Weinrich, and Just are preaching. I hear more and more references to the Means of Grace in preaching amongst my circuit brothers. There is no doubt that this is a phenomenon among us.
  • Mar 30, 2007 14:11:07 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
    Why are guys with the name of "Paul" the ones flowing the largest flaming torches on the spilled gasoline here?
    
    <g>
    • Mar 30, 2007 14:12:07 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
      That would be "throwing" torches, not "flowing" torches.
• Mar 30, 2007 14:06:01 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
  Pastor Petersen,
  
  Just to note: We have more than demonstrated the case that it is a contentious topic and that it can get ugly.
  
  My plea for those in whose minds it is settled as heretical would simply be this: can you recognize that your brothers in Christ are not persuaded by your arguments and would you be willing to hear them out as they lay out their reasons why and then engage in a discussion with them? Dismissals are easily done, but rarely helpful.
  
  This is a REAL issue in the Church that all of us are facing more and more. It will not be going away. We need to have some sort of answer that is formed from prayerful study of the Scriptures and the Symbols and that takes account of the practice of our fathers in the faith across many centuries as well as the practice of our Reformation fathers and their heirs.
  
  If anyone believes that the final word on this topic has been spoken, I beg them to at least be willing to give a respectful ear to those who believe otherwise. Respectful means to do so as listening to brothers in Christ. We may not in the end be able to come to agreement on this topic, but we never shall without a humble, prayerful, and scholarly attempt to address the matter.
• Mar 30, 2007 13:59:51 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
  Those who advocate infant communion have failed to demonstrate from the plain words of Scripture that we have a clear example, command and/or promise for the practice ... the litmus test wisely used in the Lutheran Confessions for such things. Rather, the arguments made for it are predicated on logical syllogisms and conclusions that require a great deal of packing clear texts with meanings and interpretations that strike me as ex post facto arguments for conclusions already reached. In other words, we have a strong sense that infants should be communed, now let's try to gather reasons for it. I have noticed a consistent disregard for the specific gifts, benefits and purposes of each of the means of grace.
  
  The Church should be consistent in how it deals with those suffering from Alzheimer's or mental retardation. If either situation is so severe the person is incapable of discerning the Lord's body and blood, then they are not to be communed. That was my pastoral practice. When I handed the incapacited the host and they had no idea what to do with it, I did not force feed it to them.
  
  I've read nothing on this subject to convince me that the plain sense of the Sacred Scriptures as Lutheranism has interpreted and applied it is incorrect. I do not regard the practice of infant communion at some times and places in the Church's history before the Reformation to be normative for us. The Early Church often erred and made mistakes in its practice. Eastern Orthodoxy is no teacher for us on this point.
  
  We do not accept the Lutheran Confessions "in so far as" they can be shown to be in agreement with the Early Church. This is what I'm sensing behind some of the arguments appealing to the Early Church.
  
  Our Confessions simply preclude infant communion as the plain words of the Confessions make clear. An argument from silence on these matters simply will not suffice. I do not understand how a person who claims to have a "quia" subscription to the Confessions can also hold to the practiceo of infant communion.
  
  We only administer the Sacrament to those who know what it is and why they desire it. We do not force feed the sacrament to those who do not. For, if we force those to receive it who are unable we may well be giving the Sacrament to those who may "not believe the words or doubt them" and therefore may be "unworthy and unfit." (SC VI).
  
  We Lutherans recognize that the "people who come to the Lord's Supper ought to know more and have a fuller understanding of all Chrisian doctrine than children and new scholars." (LC Short Preface.5).
  
  Our Confessions clearly indicate that anyone who desires the Sacrament must be able to recite the "three parts" and that "a person must know what to say about our Sacraments, which Christ Himself instituted: Baptism and the holy body and blood of Christ. They should know the texts that Mathew and Mark record at the close of their Gospels, when Christ said farewell to His discipls and sent them forth." (LC Short Preface.20).
  
  Force feeding infants the sacrament violates these words from our Confession: "No one should by any means be forced or compelled to go to the Sacrament, lest we institute a new murdering of souls." (LC V.42).
  
  My personal opinion is that whenever children are capable of reciting the "three parts" and the instituting texts for our Sacraments as Christ has given them: Baptism and the Supper (see LC Short Preface, par. 20), in a simple manner confessing their sin, their Savior and what the Lord's Supper is and what it gives, then they are ready to receive it. I agree with Pr. Eckardt that whatever we do, let's do it together. At the very least the Synod could in convention recognize that parishes may choose to offer first communion when a child is deemed ready to receive it and that decision should be respected by other congregations. I wish we would separate confirmation from first communion, for we have effectively turned the Blessed Sacrament into a "reward" for passing confirmation.
  
  Infant communion? No.
  Earlier age for first communion? Yes.
  
  
• Mar 30, 2007 13:52:07 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
  Those who advocate infant communion have failed to demonstrate from the plain words of Scripture that we have a clear example, command and/or promise for the practice ... the litmus test wisely used in the Lutheran Confessions for such things. Rather, the arguments made for it are predicated on logical syllogisms and conclusions that require a great deal of packing clear texts with meanings and interpretations that strike me as ex post facto arguments for conclusions already reached. In other words, we have a strong sense that infants should be communed, now let's try to gather reasons for it. I have noticed a consistent disregard for the specific gifts, benefits and purposes of each of the means of grace.
  
  The Church should be consistent in how it deals with those suffering from Alzheimer's or mental retardation. If either situation is so severe the person is incapable of discerning the Lord's body and blood, then they are not to be communed. That was my pastoral practice. When I handed the incapacited the host and they had no idea what to do with it, I did not force feed it to them.
  
  I've read nothing on this subject to convince me that the plain sense of the Sacred Scriptures as Lutheranism has interpreted and applied it is incorrect. I do not regard the practice of infant communion at some times and places in the Church's history before the Reformation to be normative for us. The Early Church often erred and made mistakes in its practice. Eastern Orthodoxy is no teacher for us on this point.
  
  We do not accept the Lutheran Confessions "in so far as" they can be shown to be in agreement with the Early Church. This is what I'm sensing behind some of the arguments appealing to the Early Church.
  
  Our Confessions simply preclude infant communion as the plain words of the Confessions make clear. An argument from silence on these matters simply will not suffice. I do not understand how a person who claims to have a "quia" subscription to the Confessions can also hold to the practiceo of infant communion.
  
  We only administer the Sacrament to those who know what it is and why they desire it. We do not force feed the sacrament to those who do not. For, if we force those to receive it who are unable we may well be giving the Sacrament to those who may "not believe the words or doubt them" and therefore may be "unworthy and unfit." (SC VI).
  
  We Lutherans recognize that the "people who come to the Lord's Supper ought to know more and have a fuller understanding of all Chrisian doctrine than children and new scholars." (LC Short Preface.5).
  
  Our Confessions clearly indicate that anyone who desires the Sacrament must be able to recite the "three parts" and that "a person must know what to say about our Sacraments, which Christ Himself instituted: Baptism and the holy body and blood of Christ. They should know the texts that Mathew and Mark record at the close of their Gospels, when Christ said farewell to His discipls and sent them forth." (LC Short Preface.20).
  
  Force feeding infants the sacrament violates these words from our Confession: "No one should by any means be forced or compelled to go to the Sacrament, lest we institute a new murdering of souls." (LC V.42).
  
  My personal opinion is that whenever children are capable of reciting the "three parts" and the instituting texts for our Sacraments as Christ has given them: Baptism and the Supper (see LC Short Preface, par. 20), in a simple manner confessing their sin, their Savior and what the Lord's Supper is and what it gives, then they are ready to receive it. Third or fourth grade seems about right. I wish we would separate confirmation from first communion, for we have effectively turned the Blessed Sacrament into a "reward" for passing confirmation.
  
  Infant communion? No.
  Earlier age for first communion? Yes.
  
  
  • Mar 30, 2007 14:01:19 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
    Woops, sorry for the double post. I thought the site had timed out the first time I posted the comment.
• Mar 30, 2007 11:47:18 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
  As I was thinking more about this, it seem clear to me that if we communion infants, since they need the body and blood of Jesus, shouldn't we also, if possible, find a way to commune the unborn? Could we not have a way to inject the body and blood of Christ into their unborn bodies, though those bodies are sinful and they are alive, every bit as in much need of Communion as the child who has been born? After all, are we going to say that the Word stops working just because a few inches of human tissue separates the ears of the little ones from the preaching of that Word? Isn't this what the proof-text for pre-born infant faith, the Visitation, teaches us?
  
  If we are going to advocate for post-partum communion, I will argue for neo-natal communion.
  
  Aren't we just talking here about a matter of inches, not degree?
  • Mar 31, 2007 03:12:08 Re: Infant Communion - Peter Barber
    McCain--
    
    As rediculous as your post has tried to make the topioc, the answer is simple: Babies already receive the Body and Blood in the womb of the faithful mother when she participates in the Sacrament.
    
    And please stop calling infant communion a "force-feeding" of the Lord's Body and Blood. Do you call a mother feeding her infant via breast or bottle "force-feeding" as well. I've got kids of my own. They have cried for food ever since they came into this world. "Force-feeding" applies when talking about spinach, not the Sacrament!
    
    I'm with K. Martin on this. You're no help at all.
    
    - Peter
  • Mar 30, 2007 12:06:27 Re: Infant Communion - K. Martin
    Really helpful post McCain.
    
    Have you noticed most everyone else on here is trying to listen to what other brethren are saying and take seriously a real question of pastoral care and make constructive contributions? The obvious belittling of the serious pastoral concerns of your brethren here is something you frequently inveigh against when people try to post similar "straw men" arguments on your blog. Why not show the same respect you demand of others?
    
    Pieper himself says we must never deny the Sacrament to those for whom Christ intends it. To do so would be a serious failure of pastoral care. So if we are in fact doing that to "the least of these His brethren", by denying communion to children, isn't that a problem that deserves our serious theological reflection? If you think it's just a waste of time, why not go post somewhere else?
    • Mar 30, 2007 12:34:04 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
      By the way, Pastor Martin, Son of Peter and I and others here have been tweeking each other and pulling on another's chains for a long time. You are a relative infrequent party guest here, so my advice to you is chill out a bit. I'm sure Pastor Petersen is more than capable of moderating his own blog site and doesn't need you to be the school hall monitor
      • Mar 30, 2007 17:48:50 Re: Infant Communion - K. Martin
        What does it matter how often I visit, Mr. McCain? Always numbers with you, huh? If I visited 1,200 times would my points have more validity?
        
        I couldn't find any other point to your communing the unborn post except to suggest that this is not a serious issue of pastoral care. As a pastor who actually serves a parish where this is a very lively issue, I was merely suggesting to you that this topic deserves serious, scholarly debate and not straw men arguments. My suggestion was that if you don't have anything intelligent to say you ought not to hit that "post" button. I'd renew that suggestion.
    • Mar 30, 2007 12:27:54 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
      I'm arguing that we focus on communion children before confirmation age. I'm arguing against communing infants in arms.
      
      I was, with my previous post, merely demonstrating how "logical conclusions" can be taken to their logical conclusion. I've heard long and detailed arguments about the faith of the unborn in the womb, from some of the same folks advocating for infant communion, by the way.
      
      So, if he who is truly and well prepared is he has faith in these words, "This is my body, given for you" and if the unborn have faith and if there is no difference in faith.... then why not the unborn? And if the unborn have already arrived at faith in their mother's wombs, why baptism?
      
      I'll be interested in learning why the unborn should not be communed, if that were possible, and the born should be communed, given the "logic" of and use of "faith" that seems to be driving much of this train.
      
      The fundamental error here is treating baptism, holy communion, holy absolution and the word under some sort of general definition of "sacrament" or "means of grace" rather than letting each do its own thing, in its own way, for those to whom it may be given.
      
      I'm with Cwirla when he asks why we take pains to commune persons with the mental capacity of seven year olds, but get uptight about comming seven year old children.
      
      Note: seven year old children are not suckling infants.
      • Mar 30, 2007 12:43:31 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
        I don't think many of us are actually advocating for the immediate move to infant communion - we know and love our parishes and our people, and we know what such advocacy would do to our churches. But we are advocating for the freedom to discuss this and explore the matter - a matter which many of us think the Reformation fathers did not put on the front burner, and therefore did not do justice to. One cannot but be struck in the discussion between Andreae and Jeremias II how Andreae builds his entire case on a reading of 1 Cor. that Luther disallows; or how Andreae can say that we do not NEED to commune the baptized infants because they spiritually eat of Christ by faith, never even taking note that it was exactly this "spiritually eating of Christ by faith" which according to the Formula is the very grounds for a beneficial oral eating. These are matters which the CTCR in its report simply did not deal with, and they need to be looked at. Not in the heat of someone pressing the Church to change on this over night, but in the calm and reasoned and prayerful discussion of the Scriptures by which the Holy Spirit leads the Church to an ever deeper appropriation of the faith once delivered to the saints.
        • Mar 30, 2007 13:32:44 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
          Fr. Weedon, thank you for your well-reasoned comments. You said it much better than I could.
          
          GVG
          • Mar 30, 2007 17:53:42 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
            Fr. Gehlbach,
            
            What I presented was nothing but a condensation of the arguments you have assembled and helpfully presented for all to read. For that the Church owes you a debt of gratitude indeed.
• Mar 30, 2007 11:37:48 Re: Infant Communion - Aaron D. Wolf
  There might be another reason why this issue could come to the fore: It might be coming to the fore in Rome. While everyone was updating their web browsers waiting for the Moto Proprio on the Latin Mass, Benedict issued the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis. I could be wrong, but I detect, between the lines, a theological approach on Benedict's part (unlike John Paul II's approach) to bettering relationshps between East and West.
  
  Anyway, this is striking: "If the Eucharist is truly the source and summit of the Church's life and mission, it follows that the process of Christian initiation must constantly be directed to the reception of this sacrament. As the Synod Fathers said, we need to ask ourselves whether in our Christian communities the close link between Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist is sufficiently recognized."
  
  Now, here's the more direct statement:
  

  Quote:

  [A]ttention needs to be paid to the order of the sacraments of initiation. Different traditions exist within the Church. There is a clear variation between, on the one hand, the ecclesial customs of the East (50) and the practice of the West regarding the initiation of adults, (51) and, on the other hand, the procedure adopted for children. (52) Yet these variations are not properly of the dogmatic order, but are pastoral in character. Concretely, it needs to be seen which practice better enables the faithful to put the sacrament of the Eucharist at the centre, as the goal of the whole process of initiation.

  Whether we like it or not, if Rome were to alter its pastoral practice, for the sake of emphasizing that the "Eucharist is truly the source and summit of the Church's life and mission," many more Lutherans would be discussing this.
  
  For the record, I am also uncomfortably on the fence along with Pr. Curtis, although I'm a layman, so I really won't be deciding anything.
  
  Here's the full text.
  • Mar 30, 2007 12:33:42 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
    Aaron,
    
    I agree 100%. I have thought for a long time that the solution to this will not come from the Lutherans alone, but will come to the Lutherans from Rome. We shall see. I figure that after Rome restores the practice it will only be a matter of a decade or so before the Lutherans follow suit.
    • Mar 30, 2007 12:44:00 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
      Depends on what sort of "Lutherans" -- we know the LWF style Lutherans will adopt, or abandon, any practice that it takes to make one of those full communion arrangements possible.
      
      Come to think of it, what are the theological reasons why Rome doesn't commune children now?
      • Mar 30, 2007 12:53:31 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
        I believe that Rome, like the Lutherans, is in the position of not communing children *by custom* rather than for any theological rationale. Thus, in the Roman Communion to this day IF you are Eastern rite, the infants are communed. As Gifford intimated it was practical reasons that led to the gradual splitting up of what was originally bound together. In Rome, only a bishop can confirm. Baptisms used to have confirmation immediately following, because they were performed by the bishop in his cathedral on the vigils of easter and pentecost. Then the children were brought to the altar to commune, usually in one kind - our Lord's blood being administered by a spoon or by the priest's finger. But if there is no confirmation, there can be no eucharist according to the unity of those three in the rites of Christian initiation. The result was that what had been joined together for centuries became split up. As I mention elsewhere on this thread, Fisher's book *Christian Initiation in the Medieval West* is a very illumining read. I highly recommend it. He has no ax to grind; he's not advocating any position for the current church, just seeking to help us understand how our forebears actually practiced in the years prior to the Reformation.
        • Mar 30, 2007 15:30:06 Re: Infant Communion - Aaron D. Wolf
          Charlemagne's Frankish theologians first prohibited the communion of small children, and, if I recall correctly, it was in an effort to counter the teaching that John 6 makes the Eucharist a sine qua non of salvation.
          
          Four hundred years later, the Fourth Lateran Council affirmed this: "All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year, and let them take care to do what they can to perform the penance imposed on them. Let them reverently receive the sacrament of the eucharist at least at Easter unless they think, for a good reason and on the advice of their own priest, that they should abstain from receiving it for a time. Otherwise they shall be barred from entering a church during their lifetime and they shall be denied a christian burial at death."
          
          Trent reaffirmed this (in part, against the Hussites): "Finally, the same holy council teaches that little children who have not attained the use of reason are not by any necessity bound to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist; for having been regenerated by the laver of baptism and thereby incorporated with Christ,[13] they cannot at that age lose the grace of the sons of God already acquired. Antiquity is not therefore to be condemned, however, if in some places it at one time observed that custom. For just as those most holy Fathers had acceptable ground for what they did under the circumstances, so it is certainly to be accepted without controversy that they regarded it as not necessary to salvation." Thus, "If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion,[17] let him be anathema."
          
          So there is the loophole, which allows Eastern Rite Catholics infant communion—namely, that the practice is valid, so long as it is accepted that infant/small child communion is not necessary for salvation, because a baptized child cannot fall from the state of grace until he reaches the "age of reason" (that is, he is incapable of mortal sin).
          
          In the current Catholic Catechism, the age of First Communion is discussed under Confirmation. "In the East this sacrament is administered immediately after Baptism and is followed by participation in the Eucharist; this tradition highlights the unity of the three sacraments of Christian initiation. In the Latin Church this sacrament is administered when the age of reason has been reached, and its celebration is ordinarily reserved to the bishop, thus signifying that this sacrament strengthens the ecclesial bond. A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs."
          
          However, the Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "That infants and children not yet come to the use of reason may not only validly but even fruitfully receive the Blessed Eucharist is now the universally received opinion."
• Mar 30, 2007 11:12:57 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
  To speak to what Pastor Petersen says the purpose of this post actually was: what the "number one" issue internally for us will be in the future.
  
  I will go on record saying the question of giving Holy Communion to infants is not it. Simply because a few dozen pastors debate is ad naseum and bring it up from time to time and can engage in a lively conversation here is no indication that the communion of infants is going to be a "flashpoint" issue for us in any meaningful sense going forward.
  
  The much larger and more important question for all of us is the question of an earlier first communion.
  
  You do not have to adopt the kind of fallacious syllogisms being embraced by those who advocate infant communion to speak with benefit about an earlier age of first communion.
  
  Luther provides the proper pastoral insight into when a child might be read for Holy Communion.
• Mar 30, 2007 10:52:10 Re: Infant Communion - Lincoln Winter
  I am now making the move in my congregation to earlier catechesis. (4-6 instead of 7-8).
  The ideal situation, if I could create the perfect church, would be this :
  At baptism the parents and child are given a copy of Luther's Small Catechism. (Which I do)
  When the child has learned the Catechism by heart, they are brought to the pastor for more formal instruction, leading to confirmation and admission to the altar. If that is age seven, good. If that is not until age 27, so be it.
  But trying to discuss the Ten Commandments with children who are hearing them for the first time is simply useless. If they know them, then you are in a much better position to discuss what they mean. For a pastor at a new parish, it can take years to get the children in a position where they know what they should, if the previous pastor has not taught properly.
  At a previous parish, I was once accused of "not wanting to teach confirmation" because I gave the catechism to the parents of a third grader. So much for "the head of the household".
  We need to start with the parents. When they come for pre-marital instruction, show them the part about "as the head of the household". When they baptize a child, show it to them again. Give them the catechism. (Kudos to CPH for "My First Catechism").
  Perhaps, in two or three generations, we can cultivate the idea that it isn't just "show up for church at age 13 for the first time and take the classes, graduate, and then never come back."
  Also, stop calling it confirmation class. English has an English book, Math has a Math book, catechesis has a catechism. Calling it "Confirmation Class" is like calling 9-12 grade "Graduation school." It sets the wrong tone from day 1. Catechesis is a process, not a result. Words do matter.
  I do hope that Pr. Peterson is right about one thing : That in 50 years they will look on 8 grade confirmation as a pietistic curiosity.
  
  • Mar 30, 2007 10:54:02 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
    So, when and how did confirmation become linked to the age of 13 or so? What was the practice in the 16th century?
    • Mar 30, 2007 22:28:10 Re: Infant Communion - Pr. Cornelius
      I think Bente addresses this when he records that Bugenhagen had confirmed children in his parish by the age of 8.
      There is also that curious statement by Luther in the SA that, "even a 7 year old child knows what the Church is..."
      Someone in a previous post had mentioned having the parents teach the text of the SC to their children and after they had learned it by heart, bringing them to the pastor for fuller instruction. These seems to me to be a salutary suggestion.
    • Mar 30, 2007 12:27:15 Re: Infant Communion - John Frahm
      From what I read in A.C. Repp (Confirmation in the Lutheran Church), it was Pietism that brought it to 13 or 14 years old. That's a book CPH should bring back into print (along with Counseling and Confession by Koehler).
      
      I think the Pietists wanted to have more of a mood or level of piety exhibited with understanding before Communion. I think there might be something on this also in LW: History and Practice.
• Mar 30, 2007 09:52:30 Re: Infant Communion - K. Martin
  I think Cwirla's post nails it, personally, and that the Passover citation he offers is more than "theology by analogy"--it strikes my ear as strong biblical typology and exegesis that should carry some weight with us. As Curtis shows, there is no real confessional barrier to the very young receiving the Sacraments. They were examined at Baptism (if you use Luther's rite, from the BOC baptismal booklet and not LW's!) and absolved there, so no problem with "examined and absolved". Likewise Luther's understanding of I Cor. 11 (which seems dead on point to me) is clearly that the admonition to self exaxmination is directed to the adults, and does not exclude the very young.
  
  But I think McCain's Catechism citation that we administer the Sacrament only to those who "know what they seek and why they come" is right on point also and I think Cwirla shows the way to deal with that. When they recognize the Lamb and seek to feed on Him, then they should. That would free us from shaky, man-made legalistic rules while still upholding all the Word and Confessions say of the Sacrament and its evangelical use.
  
  I also find it a very practical question. Half the parents of small children in the parish I serve ask me about this, and many of them with deepest concern. Caring for the littlest lambs of the flock is both practical and important--to this undershepherd at least! (Jesus seemed to be pretty concerned about the little ones in the Gospels--threatening millstones around the neck for those who would cause them to sin, and rebuking the disciples pretty hard for keeping the little ones away from Him, didn't He?) I want to care for all the flock with the very best Christ has to offer them. But I too am given pause by the long Western tradition against infant communion. The congregation I serve is "confirmed 8th graders only" and I've respected that, even though I'm troubled by it. Cwirla's picture of the Passover table exactly mirrors my own experience giving the Sacrament. On the one hand, I would balk at jamming the Body and Blood into an infant's mouth who isn't seeking it. But I'm equally troubled hearing the 4 year old kneeling with outstretched hands (whom I'd just passed by with the Chalice) cry out: "Hey! Skipped me!"--which an actual 4 year old actually said at an actual Supper in our congregation not long ago...
• Mar 30, 2007 08:22:22 Re: Infant Communion - Todd Wilken
  Just rolling out of bed.
  
  With all due respect, I don't know what oasis of Lutheranism you guys are living in.
  
  The way things are going, we should concern ourselves with keeping the Lord's Supper --period-- in some of our congregations.
  
  Or haven't you heard? Seekers don't want the body and blood. Besides, music is the new Eucharist.
  
  And infants? Haven't you guys heard of the cry room or the church nursery? Then, of course, there's always "children's church."
  
  ROCK ON!
  
  Now back to bed.
  • Mar 30, 2007 10:28:38 Re: Infant Communion - Petersen
    I was meaning to consider where the internal debate, that is the debate amongst the "confessionals" "conservatives" (whatever it is we are), would go. I understand that there are other issues within the LCMS and even more issues within the cultural context of American Christianity. But where will we fracture? What do we need to deal with amongst ourselves? I think this is the issue. I think the immediate responses are proof of it.
    
    That is not to say that it is the only issue or even that it is the most important issue or that it will matter that much to outsiders or to those on Missouri's left. But I think it will be an issue for us the rest of our days.
    • Mar 30, 2007 11:19:42 Re: Infant Communion - Todd Wilken
      David:
      
      I understand.
      
      But, as you know, the Confessions are not primarily inside Lutheran documents. They are not an internal memorandum; they are a press release.
      
      They are intentionally ecumenical and catholic documents (although most non-confessional Lutherans and many confessional Lutherans seem to have forgotten this).
      
      In other words, the Confessions are designed for the debate(s) outside the confessional circle.
      
      Does this make any sense?
      
      
  • Mar 30, 2007 08:43:43 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
    Todd, would you stop trying to focus attention on relevant, practical and pressing needs in the Church? It's a lot more fun to spend time on this kind of speculative stuff, don't you know?
    • Mar 30, 2007 08:48:25 Re: Infant Communion - Todd Wilken
      Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z . . .
      
      
      • Mar 30, 2007 13:04:22 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
        It is manifest by the tenor of both pastors that they are not in the parish having parishioners ASK them about why their children (even infants!) cannot receive the Eucharist. This is a reality I LIVE with. I do not appreciate the intimation that it is because I have nothing better to do with my time than to dream up controversies.
        • Mar 30, 2007 14:05:09 Re: Infant Communion - Rev PTM
          Bill, been there and done that. Please, we do not need patronizing remarks about who is in the parish and who is not. That's a cop out.
          
          I've told parents who've asked that I would like to commune their younger children and I would strive forward a congregationally sanctioned earlier communion age. Never got there, but was on the way, and would work toward it today, especially in light of the blessing of LSB's provision for it, which is as good a 'seal of approval' on the practice as we've ever had.
          
          I've also explained effectively why infants are not to be communed.
          
          It's called teaching. Some may like it. Others may not, but I do not approach it with the assumption that infant communion is appropriate.
          
          • Mar 30, 2007 14:22:38 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
            Paul,
            
            I wrote in anger, and I should know better. I ask your and Todd's forgiveness. But setting aside my indefensible tone, the fact remains that matter is not esoteric or a preoccupation of certain pastors; it's a real issue out there in the Church, and I think Petersen is bang on right that it will be a HUGE issue in the future when people will wonder at why we let the matter rest where we did, following the weight of custom.
            • Mar 30, 2007 14:38:16 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
              Bill, thanks. And thanks, as always, for putting up with me. It's my day off and I've got time to kill, for a change, so there you go.
              
              Bill, I really feel this way. "Infant communion" is one thing. "Earlier age for first communion" another.
              
              I think we can very faithfully address the earlier age issue without slipping off the edge into infant communion.
              
              Our "custom" against communion for infants is based on very sound theology.
              
              Teaching is the key.
              • Mar 31, 2007 12:14:00 Re: Infant Communion - Braaten
                Rev. McCain,
                
                Your distinction of infant communion and earlier is one only theory, and this is the problem that Petersen is trying to shed light on. How early is too early? For one guy they may be comfortable with a two-year-old child communing. For the guy, however, who is only comfortable with the seven-year-old child communing, his charge against the former will be that he communes infants. So this topic of infant communion isn't so looney-toon land as you might suggest.
              • Mar 30, 2007 15:39:50 Re: Infant Communion - Todd Wilken
                Bill,
                
                I know that, for a few, the infant communion issue isn't esoteric.
                
                My point is: while the few debate infant communion, the many are abandoning the Supper altogether.
                
                Those infants are going to grow up (and likely leave the Lutheran oasis).
                
                Let's leave them a synod where the Lord's Supper is celebrated by more than just the few.
                • Mar 30, 2007 15:50:36 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
                  Todd,
                  
                  Could it be, though, that when folks abandon the Eucharist as unimportant they do so because they listened to what we DID rather than just what we SAID? For 14 years we communicate to them that they can be Christians just fine without the Eucharist; that they don't really need it. How important can it really be after all, then?
                  • Mar 30, 2007 18:13:02 Re: Infant Communion - Todd Wilken
                    Bill,
                    
                    I agree. IF, we are not communing infants because we think they don't need it. They most certainly do.
                    
                    But the sinner's need isn't the only factor. We routinely withhold the Supper from those who need it (close communion), don't we? Are we are telling them that they don't need it? No. In fact, just the opposite.
                    
                    The need for the Supper is never the question. Who doesn't need it?
                    
                    Withholding the Supper never means, "You don't need it."
                    
                    Abandoning the Supper always does.
                    
                    
                    
                    
• Mar 30, 2007 07:31:50 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
  I'm not so sure I agree with you that infant communion is going to be the issue in the future. I think there will always be a few who, with an eye toward the East, think this is a neat idea, but the rest will side with the Confessions and forbid the practice.
  
  As for myself, I have long theorized about this as well, that is, what is our blind spot today? We snicker at the older pastors today who begin the lection by saying: "The inspired and inerrant Word of God from..." This is a non-issue for us for the most part. The Battle for the Bible was "back then." Likewise, when we are in our seventies, seminarians will probably snicker at us because we're still trying to teach people the significance of the liturgy. The Battle for the liturgy will have been, to them, "back then" (Lord willing). I believe they will read our sermons and label us antinomians, since few of us ever emphasize new obedience/good works in our sermons in a positive way. Then again, I could be wrong. I'm not prophet, like Dr. Scaer.
  
  Another blind spot, but one that is beginning to be recovered among Lutherans today, is the contraception thing.
• Mar 30, 2007 07:06:53 Re: Infant Communion - Eckardt
  I must say, Fr Petersen, that you know how to open cans of worms. And secondly, I am encouraged when I see the comments of others--particularly your own, and those of Fr Curtis and Fr Weedon--reflecting my own sentiments exactly. Uncomfortable though we are about the whole matter, yet finding the logic in some respects inescapable. Pr McCain, while I still agree with you in not advocating for infant communion, I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with better arguments than the tired old argument from, and misapplication of, I Corinthians 11 (as Fr Curtis has made plain, and to which you did not respond). But here are some things which, in my view, need to be investigated more seriously, if we are to take issue with the Orthodox over the matter. Not only why the Reformers had no quarrel with the denial of the Sacrament to infants, in spite of that marvelous Luther quote above (LW 54.58, which clearly has us wondering, why not infantes?), but also, and in my view more importantly, why did the West as a a whole not employ this practice, though there was no controversy regarding infant Baptism? Moreover, at the level of reasonable argument, I believe that possibly an argument can be made from the words of Jesus Himself against infant communion. Here it is: Jesus says, "Do this in remembrance of me." That might well be said to imply fides reflexiva. From the standpoint of what an adult reflexively gains from the Sacrament, this makes sense, I believe. He knows that he has just received Christ's Body by mouth; and therefore may take comfort in this fact. When Luther rejected ex opera operatum, he may also have given a reason we may say that the Sacrament does not give the kind of aid to an infant that it gives to an adult. It isn't magic (literally hocus pocus!). This argument needs to be fleshed out a bit, which means that right now it has some holes; but this is a start.
  • Mar 30, 2007 08:19:51 Re: Infant Communion - Braaten
    I consider the "Do this" of Jesus' words as the how of "in remembrance of me." That is, the act of remembering is in the doing, not separate or even distinguishable.
    
    How do we remember the Sabbath day, keeping it holy? By going to church, hearing his word, and receiving his sacraments.
    
    If these two are of the same, and both reside in fides reflexiva , which Pieper does not appropriate to children, they have no positive way of keeping the commandment. They can only despise the preaching and hearing of his word. This seems to be entirely contradictory to what it means to have faith. Chrildren would then believe in no real way, it seems.
• Mar 30, 2007 05:43:18 Re: Infant Communion - Chris Gillespie
  You are correct. Among the seminarians polled, there is general consensus on lowering the age of first communion. But there is wide and vehement disagreement on how early and under what examination criteria. It's already causing tensions and we're not even in parish.
  
  Ugly indeed.
  • Mar 30, 2007 21:06:13 Re: Infant Communion - Rebellious Pastor's Wife
    No offense, but theological discussions and tensions are OFTEN much uglier at the seminaries than when guys actually go out into the parish. That's not the most accurate gauge.
• Mar 30, 2007 05:01:41 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. Paul T. McCain
  As an aside, we see clearly by means of this post that there are two kinds of people in the world: morning people and non-morning people. Petersen posts this at 4:52. Weedon chimes in at 5:40. McCain, after posting his own blog post at around 6:00 a.m. on another subject, weighs in on this at 6:00.
  • Mar 30, 2007 05:08:04 Re: Infant Communion - Petersen
    4:52 is too early even for me. It was 5:42 here closer to the sun. :)
• Mar 30, 2007 04:59:57 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. Paul T. McCain
  Pastor P, I too find myself often wondering what the "next big issue" will be for discussion and debate and controversy among us. I'm convinced that the "worship wars" are going to be consuming a lot of our time and attention for the next decade or more. I believe that the ordination of women is also going to be a growing concern among us.
  
  It is interesting to speculate about what the next issues will be facing us. I'm greatly encouraged by the younger men now studying theology.
  
  As for infant communion...the error behind advocacy for infant communion is treating the sacraments as equivocal in all respects: what they give, and whom they are for, and how they are to be used.
  
  Simply put, to use our Confessions wonderful litmus test for such things: there is no command, example or promise for the communion of infants in arms in Sacred Scripture. And without command, example or promise, there is no foundation for the practice.
  
  Our Lutheran Confessions clearly indicate that, "The custom has been retained among us of not administering the sacrament to those who have not previously been examined and absolved" (AC XXV.1). I must admit that it is sadly ironic to me that some of those who wish to treat the Confessions' every aside and even the most vague of references to matters of liturgical practice as nearly a sort of canon law, seem quite willing to cast aside such a clear assertion from the evangelical "magna carta" of our Church: the Augsburg Confession. This is troubling, and deeply so.
  
  Advocacy for infant communion shows where dogmatics finally fails when it is not founded on solid exegesis. If we choose to go down this path we will need to free ourselves from the pattern of sound words provided in bpth Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions on this issue [see quote below].
  
  If we approach this from the standpoint of "logical conclusions" there is where we are going to get ourselves in trouble, trying to systematize and smooth out the unique gifts and benefits of Baptism and Holy Communion.
  
  Given the "logic" behind advocacy of infant communion, there is really no ground to stand on when denying Holy Communion to the non-baptized, since there is no explicit Scriptural injunction that would prohibit the communion of the non-baptized.
  
  We need to separate and distinguish faithfully between the question of an earlier age for first communion, and thankfully we are clearly headed toward an earlier age of first communion, witness the LSB rite for first communion, and the communion of infants. Let us heed the Apostolic Word, "Let a man examine himself" before he receives the body and blood of Jesus.
  
  There is no comfort ever to be found in the glories of "old Missouri" even as there is no comfort to be found in false and misleading speculations on this subject.
  
  The Scriptures present the Sacraments as unique gifts from the Lord, each given for their own unique purpose and unique benefit.
  
  If however we just lump "sacraments" under the same umbrella of "gives grace, there can be received by all in our fellowship" then we are heading down a path that no longer respects the Dominical word of the Apostle St. Paul on the issue of self-examination as requisite for the reception of the Supper.
  
  I think you are right that there will be things the "next generation" will look on this present generation as weak on, rightly or wrongly, but I would hope it will not be on "infant communion" -- a practice that has no warrant in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.
  
  I believe that the response offered some years back by the LCMS Commission on Theology to a few in the Synod advocating for infant communion was very well done and worthy of careful study.
  
  Several years ago President Barry spoke to this issue:
  
  The Lord's Supper is for Christians who have been adequately taught the truths of the Christian faith and are thus able to examine themselves properly before receiving the Sacrament. Nowhere in Scripture do we read anything that would specifically indicate, or even imply, that infants are to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion. This is not to say that there is no room for discussion of an earlier first communion age, but this is quite a different issue than the question of communing babies or very young children.
  
  Our Lutheran Confessions clearly indicate that, "The custom has been retained among us of not administering the sacrament to those who have not previously been examined and absolved" (AC XXV.1). This would not be possible with infants and very young children.
  
  The Commission on Theology and Church Relations has released a very well-done response to questions about infant communion raised by pastors in one of our districts. I encourage you to call or write the CTCR and ask for a copy of their paper if you would like to pursue this issue further.
  
  Here is the paper referred to:
  
  http://www.lcms.or...a/CTCR/infbapt.pdf
  • Mar 30, 2007 07:35:03 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
    PTM wrote: "Our Lutheran Confessions clearly indicate that, "The custom has been retained among us of not administering the sacrament to those who have not previously been examined and absolved" (AC XXV.1)."
    
    Paul, Scott Marincic dealt with this point in his paper "Truly Worthy". Although many will disagree with his application, his point is worthy of consideration and discussion.
    
    GVG
    • Mar 30, 2007 08:58:21 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
      Gary: question.
      
      Have you given communion to infants, your own children, or others?
      
      If so, why?
      If not, why not?
  • Mar 30, 2007 06:05:48 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
    Another question and one that is of great practical import is this: does one simply lower the age of confirmation or does one keep that as a rite of passage, if you will, and introduce the practice of first communion? That's of great practical interest to many of us, and it would be wonderful to see a discussion and some consensus on the best way to go with it.
    • Mar 30, 2007 07:17:58 Re: Infant Communion - Paul Beisel
      I think it pointless to have confirmation as a "stand-alone" rite, separate from admission to the altar. I know because I tried it. It was like, "What's the point? She's already been formally received as a communicant member."
      
      Lower the age of first communion, and use the Rite of Confirmation as the Church's formal rite of reception into communicant membership, no matter what age they are. Don't make confirmation and first communion separate things.
  • Mar 30, 2007 06:02:54 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
    Actually, Paul, I do not think this is accurate at all: that those who advocate infant communion do so as treating the sacraments as equivocal in all respects. I think it is exactly the opposite: those who DENY communion to infants do so on the basis of "they've got all they need in Baptism" as though Baptism and the Eucharist were exactly the same thing (which Pieper does indeed more or less say!) instead of letting the proprium of each sacrament be what it is. There is the new birth and then there is the food that the new man eats, a variety of which is of the Eucharistic sort. FWIW.
    
    I do note that Pr. Petersen has not initiated a discussion about infant communion per se, but about whether it is the next storm looming on the horizon. I suspect that he is quite right. The breaking of the 8th grade/age 14 thing is not the problem. The problem is where then do you fix a barrier that is not equally as artificial? That's what there will be ugly fights about.
    • Mar 30, 2007 07:24:48 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
      Bill, your analysis is spot on. In the CTCR response to Circuits 18 & 19, it asserts that advocates of infant communion are making the two sacrament equivocal to each other. Yet, that is exactly what it does in its own response. The CTCR dismisses 2000 years of Church history as being irrelevant, yet asserts the importance of the past 150 years of the LCMS. It plays word games by asserting that a person can be "worthy" yet receive the sacrament "unworthily."
      
      For more information on infant communion and links to several LCMS documents, I would refer folks to my website. It has references and links to all sorts of papers on infant communion.
      
      GVG
      • Mar 30, 2007 08:18:21 Re: Infant Communion - Rev.PTM
        Gary, I know that you personally are really "into" the whole infant communion thing. If so, I urge you to take your views very public and post them on your blog site along with all supporting documentation for your position and then's let's have an open debate over it. Subject your position to that scrutiny.
        
        You are going to have a tough row to hoe though trying to reinterpret the Confessions and Scriptures and appealing to a couple of pastor's papers isn't going to cut the old mustard.
        • Mar 30, 2007 10:11:34 Re: Infant Communion - Gary Gehlbach
          I should take it public? Apparently, my website isn't public, although it has been one of the top search results under Google and only recently overtaken by wikipedia and paedocommunion.com. I lost my top listing when we changed ISPs last year.
          
          Several pastors' papers may not "cut the mustard" in your opinion. But the opponents' arguments are weak and don't cut the muster with Scripture and the Confessions.
          
          The topic of infant communion is an open question. Luther and the Reformers never condemned the Eastern Churches on this topic. (Oh, right that is an argument from silence; but it is still a valid point.) Oh, yes, I'm "into" discussing infant communion. Unlike others who simply wish to pontificate their opinions and bully others into submission.
          
          Paul, believe it or not, I want to discuss the issue (my website lists articles both pro and con) and have been discussing it for years. And besides, the real issue behind the infant communion discussion is whether or not infants have faith or if they must have adult faith to be worthy. All the arguments against infant communion (even the CTCR's) indicate that there are two types of faith -- adult faith and infant faith. I find this most offensive and contrary to the Scripture and the Confessions.
          
          You ask in another place whether I commune infants. No, it is not in the western tradition I inherited. But as with all traditions, it must continually tested by Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
          
          GVG
          • Mar 30, 2007 21:07:28 Re: Infant Communion - USS Sem 1
            Christ holds up the little children as the example of faith. So perhaps we should not commune the adults and only commune the little children. Of course I am joking, but the thought that one must have "adult faith" is rediculous.
          • Mar 30, 2007 10:49:15 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
            Gary, I really wish you would stop whining about being "bullied" everytime somebody really presses you hard for some clarity and flat out tells you that you are wrong.
            
            Before you go dissing the CTCR response, would it be wise to consider who was on the CTCR in 1997 when it was issued? I don't think the cavalier manner in which you dismiss it is wise, and needless to day, it deserves to be read carefully, for you are, as you are prone to do, misrepresenting it.
            
            The *real issue* behind infant communion is whether the Lord's Supper is to be given to infants in light of what Scripture says about the necessity of self-examination.
            
            And...by the way...Marcinec dodges the passages in the Confessions that he can't use to prop up his position.
            
            A quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions simply diallows entertaining the notion of infant communion.
            
            You and others who are advocating for infant communion would do much better to contribute toward the far more productive and valid discussion about an earlier age for first communion.
            
            I respectfully disagree with Pastor P. on this. Infant communion is not *the* issue in our circles, nor will it be. Just because a few dozen guys grind away on it doesn't make it a "big issue."
            
            Earlier age of first communion? Now there's where we would do much better to spend our time and energy.
            • Mar 30, 2007 12:30:52 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
              I would be curious to see a demonstration of how a quia subscription disallows the possibility of infant communion. If you were thinking of the "custom" passage, well do give consideration to the confessors meaning of that word in specific.
              • Mar 30, 2007 12:39:40 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PtM
                I'm just having a very hard time reconciling the clear texts of the Confessions with the idea that infants in arms are to be force-fed the Sacrament of Holy Communion. I see a lot of twisting of texts and a lot of logical constructs being put up to say they should be communed. But I don't see any clear word on this in our Confessions.
                
                I was once told by a very good friend that the Lutheran Confessions are "canon law" for us on matters of church practice.
  • Mar 30, 2007 05:07:21 Re: Infant Communion - Petersen
    Just for the record, I am not personally advocating for infant communion. I find it troubling, but I also find it difficult to argue against. I do find the old Missourian practice of refusing communion to children (which is what waiting until the end of 8th grade does) to be abominable. I also find less than weekly Eucharist to be a grave aberration that severely hurts our people. I will look at the CTCR document. Thanks for the link.
    • Mar 30, 2007 06:01:23 Re: Infant Communion - Pr. H. R. Curtis
      That's where I am too. I'm still uncomfortable with infant communion. But I've got to admit that the historical case is rather striking - and the CTCR document really didn't do it justice. This is simply what the entire ancient Church did. Everyone admits that that is so; this is just a statement of fact. In the West the practice was changed in the late middle ages.
      
      So the question is, did the West get that change right? Luther (somewhere...Hey, Weedon where is this quote?) says that the practice of communing infants "ceased for it's own reasons." I'd like to hear more about what those reasons were.
      
      As for arguing that there is no clear passage or example that advocates infant communion - I've never bought into that as a valid argument. It's the same argument Baptist use against infant baptism. And, of course, they are right. There is no clear example of a command that says "Thou shalt baptize babies." Nor is there a clear, verbatim example of "And Paul baptized some babies."
      
      Now, don't get me wrong: I know Acts 2:37-39; I know Paul baptized "households." But the Baptists are right in saying that those passages don't actually say "baptize infants." They just don't. And that's OK. That's the way the Spirit wrote them after all. In the absence of that sort of clear passage, we take a lot of passages and string them together with an argument and thus get a clear Scriptural case. We do the same thing with the Trinity. It just seems a little facile to refuse to allow this sort of argument of stringing together passages and thoughts in just this case.
      
      Further, Luther in the LC doesn't try to argue based on these passages for just that reason. Instead, he argues that the Church has always baptized infants and that the proof of the pudding is in the eating: we're all still Christians, so such a baptism must have took.
      
      Indeed, we argue for infant baptism based on the clear commands and meanings of baptism given in Scripture. It's for the forgiveness of sins: hey, infants need that too...
      
      Furthermore, Gerhard's arguments for infant baptism are very interesting too: here's an entry collected in Schmid's Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: "[7] GRH. (IX, 236): “There is no other ordinary means of regeneration than the Word and the Sacrament of Baptism. By the Word infants cannot be influenced, but only adults, who have come to years of discretion. It remains, therefore, that they are regenerated, cleansed from the contagion of original sin, and made partakers of eternal life, through Baptism.”.
      
      He argues that we should Baptize children because they can't receive the verbal word because they do not have intellect - so they need the physical sacrament smacking them in their bodies! What a twist! Infants don't have adult intellect therefore they must be baptized! But what of I Cor 11:28 you ask? Doesn't that make Baptism different from the Lord's Supper in this regard?
      
      As for I Cor. 11:28 (which is the real obsticle among the conservative brethren: they are afraid that infant communion would erode closed communion) here's what Luther says (LW 54.58) "When in I Corinthians [11:28] Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn’t here forbid that the sacrament of the altar be given even to children [pueris]." If the examination does not prevent pueros, why should it prevent infantes?
      
      If he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words, "Given for you," then the only argument available that infants are not worthy is that they don't have faith in these words because they don't have the intellect to understand these words. This argument would turn Gerhard's thoughts on Baptism on their head. And it's a fair argument. I'm willing to think about that and argue it's finer points. But it strikes me that this really makes faith an intellectual thing at its core. Is it? For adults, of course they must understand in accord with their capability - they have intellects and the whole person must be held captive to Christ.
      
      But what if you don't have an intellect? Can you not have faith? Of course you can - so we argue with infants and baptism. Well, if they have faith - what do they have faith in if not their Lord and all that he is, does, and says? And check out this, again from the Schmid compendium:
      "The objection of the opponents, viz., “The Sacraments are of no advantage without faith, but infants have no faith,” is considered untenable; for faith is taken into the account only in the case of adults, who are already capable of being influenced by the Word. Stated generally, however, the proposition, “that the Sacraments are operative only when faith is present,” is false; for the Sacrament, as a means of salvation and as the visible Word, is designed, just as the audible Word, to produce faith, and really produces it when there is no hindrance opposed to it on the part of man, which is the case in children. BR. (690) says: “Infants, on account of their age, cannot put any hindrance in the way of divine grace, or maliciously oppose it, and hence they immediately obtain grace by the use of the constituted and unimpeded means.”
      
      Infants can't oppose the Word, they can't bring any hindrance - so Baptism they can receive. If they can receive this Word and element event, why can't they receive the other Word and element event? (and if you respond with I Cor 11, see Luther again, above.)
      
      As for being "examined and absolved" (and I'm stealing this from Weedon): That happens at Baptism: "Do you renounce the devil and all his works and all his ways?" Those examinationes/questiones are directed at the infant (see Luther's rite). And the baptism itself is the absolution. So, in short, I do not think there is a Confessional hurdle here. Just a traditional one...
      
      With all that said, I too trip up over that traditional hurdle. I can see the clear arguments for infant communion, but I'm still a little hesitant. I still want to understand why Luther and later Lutheans didn't make such a big deal of it. I still want to understand what Luther viewed as the reasons that the practice died out in the West, etc. I'm still uncomfortably on the fence...
      
      +HRC
      • Mar 30, 2007 09:07:14 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. G. Grobien
        Heath asked if the West got the change right and what "its own reasons" for ceasing were. The historical question becomes more and more complex to me all the time. If there was any "moment," it would have been Lateran IV, when the chalice was no longer administered to the people. As the chalice was the only way infants received, they generally stopped receiving after that.
        
        But, of course, the development of this took centuries and includes other factors. Up through about the fifth century, when many initiates were adults, baptism, "confirmation," and communion were all administered together. They were initiation rites. When, after the fifth century, most initiates were infants through Christian families, they were baptized within weeks or months of birth. There was no set feast (like the Easter Vigil) for baptisms, and baptisms even began to occur outside the divine service. But, infants were still given communion, as it was part of their initiation.
        
        Nathan Mitchell in his CULT AND CONTROVERSY traces the genesis and development of eucharistic devotion outside the Divine Service, and notes that numerous factors which led to a switch in eucharistic piety from thanksgiving and communion to private devotion and personal worthiness. The decrease in understanding of Latin, so that the liturgy meant less to the people, combined with the emphasis on "Real Presence" (begun by Paschasius), led to simple adoration of the species as the presence of God, rather than the eating and drinking as the forgiveness, life, and unity of the church in Christ. Adoration is closely related to personal devotion, which is closely related to human concepts of worthiness. My sense, although Mitchell doesn't say this, is that infants and children just got forgotten about as fewer people actually communed and more people worshiped the species.
        
        By the time of the removal of the chalice there was nothing left for infants.
        
        It is important to note that the ancient and early medieval church simply did not understand the Bible passage on self-examination to apply to infants and children, in similar fashion to Luther's own comment on 1 Cor 11 and children. They also understood John 6 as requiring the communion of infants as much as it required baptism. It seems that our exegetical sensibilities today have been exchanged. So it is not simply a matter of exegesis.
        
        Nor, for that matter, is it one of dogmatic reasoning, for I have not heard of any dogmatic prohibition of infant communion until after the prohibition went into effect. It is rather, a complex consideration of many factors of the faith and life of the church, given to her in the Bible and practiced in her liturgy and theology.
        
        One final note, examination and absolution, it seems to me, is a work of the Holy Spirit, and if we really take baptism and catechesis seriously, can easily be administered to baptized infants who are being catechized.
        • Mar 30, 2007 12:48:17 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
          According to Fisher's evidence in *Christian Initiation in the Medieval West* the practice actually persisted of baptizing the infants born in the parish primarily at the Vigils of either Easter or Pentecost except where the child's health was precarious.
        • Mar 30, 2007 09:30:55 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
          Rev. Grobien, if you are a Lutheran pastor, and one who accepts the Confessions unconditionally, then what do you make of Luther's comments in the Small Catechism?
          
          In the Shorter Preface to his Large Catechism Luther speaks of "the minimum knowledge required of a Christian" and adds, "Whoever does not possess it should not be reckoned among Christians nor admitted to a sacrament" (Preface, 2)
          
          And the comment in the Large Catechism that we give the Sacrament only to those who know what it is, and why the come (LC Sacrament of Altar, par. 3) and elsewhere in the Confessions that the Sacrament is given only to those who have been examined and absolved?
          • Mar 30, 2007 12:33:17 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. G. Grobien
            A few possibilities: either baptized infants have this knowledge, regardless of being able to articulate it, or Luther is saying infants are not Christians, or he is not including infants in this particular judgment, but those who have the rational capacity to learn this minimum knowledge. I am open to discussion on which possibility this might be. But, in any case, none prohibit infant communion.
            
            I already noted that through possession of the Spirit in baptism and continued catechesis following baptism, it is perfectly consistent to examine and absolve infants. I wholeheartedly confess this (and all other passages) in the Confessions.
            
            It should be noted that the Confessions also confess that "in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic." Since infant communion was a practice of the Church Catholic, it seems that we should in prayer, humility, and thoughtfulness give this practice serious consideration.
            • Mar 30, 2007 16:25:39 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. G. Grobien
              Sorry, to correct myself, if an infant is not a Christian, that would prohibit him being communed. But I suspect none of us would say an infant is not a Christian.
          • Mar 30, 2007 09:52:19 Re: Infant Communion - Braaten
            By your reading of this, if I understand you question properly, would we not then be forced to say that children, whom I infer you think do not have this knowledge, are not Christians? This seems to be an awfully dangerous position to maintain, even to the point of denying baptism any real effect. Do I understand you rightly?
            • Mar 30, 2007 10:51:31 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
              No, you do not understand me rightly.
              
              Now, back to the Luther quotes. Tell me how these quotes from our Lutheran Confessions square with the practice of "infant communion."
              
              
              • Mar 30, 2007 11:00:40 Re: Infant Communion - Braaten
                Well, Rev. McCain, if there is a minimum knowledge to be regarded as a Christian, and if children are indeed Christians, do they no likewise possess that limited knowledge to attend the supper also. Or is Luther here speaking of two different kinds of minimum knowledges? If he is, then what is the minimum for each? I read the quotation, however, as saying that this limited knowledge is one and the same.
                
                I think that the answers to the other quotations you pose have been sufficiently dealth with as offering a reasonable response to the claim that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
                • Mar 30, 2007 11:09:18 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
                  You are going to have to deal with the clear comments in our Confessions and the equally practice that resulted in the 16th century. They did not stuff the Sacramnt into the mouths of suckling children.
                  
                  You are dodging these quotes, and as such you are not reflecting a quia subscription to the Confessions, but playing some mind games and word games. You effectively have to buy a one way tick into cloud-kookoo land if you are seriously suggesting that Luther's comments in the Large Catechism concerning who is admitted to the Supper includes infants in arms.
                  
                  I'm sorry to see this kind of thing happening.
                  
                  
                  • Mar 30, 2007 12:23:56 Re: Infant Communion - Braaten
                    Rev. McCain,
                    
                    The burden of rejoinder is in your court. There have been answers to your quotations. You now need to show us how they are wrong. And if you don't consider them to be sufficient responses, then how? Otherwise, the argument can't move forward and remains a draw. How do you see that the quotations from Luther and the Confessions are exclusive of infant communion? What have we missed?
                    • Mar 30, 2007 12:36:56 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
                      Tell you what, produce the infant who can tell me what the Lord's Supper is and why he desires it and I'll gladly concede your point.
                      • Mar 30, 2007 12:58:31 Re: Infant Communion - Braaten
                        So you are arguing that as soon as someone is able to speak what it is, why they want it, and what it conveys, they then can pass go and collect $200. Okay, that's a start. This, however, needs to be shown as what in fact the Scriptures and the Confessions are arguing for. And, as other have argued on this thread, this is not as clear as you contend, in my understanding. This is why I asked you for a more fleshed out rejoinder.
                        
                        I have not argued for infant communion, in fact, I wrote that I was quite uncomfortable with it. At the same time, I don't think that we necessarily have a sufficient argument against it. I agree that the trend to move lower is good, and we need to contend for it. I do think, however, that this trend, as Petersen suggested, will bring infant communion to the fore.
                        
                        If we dismiss infant communion out of hand, how then ought the church handle those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease or even the mentally retarded?
    • Mar 30, 2007 06:00:37 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
      Hi Dave, I didn't mean to imply in my post that you were advocating infant communion. I really don't find it hard to argue against at all as long as we let the Word of the Lord have its way. I've read carefully the dogmatic logic behind infant communion and, yes, it makes sense if one is to do theology that way, but I believe Lutheranism has a much stronger basis for its practice and it is not in a Thomistic kind of synthesis. Baptism is what it is. Communion is what it is. Holy Absolution is, what it is. I can't square Paul's admonition concerning self-examination with infant communion. I would not commune an infant anymore than I would commune a person suffering from advanced dementia who didn't have a clue what the Supper is and what he seeks in it [the two criteria for communion participation in the Confessions.].
      
      I think a more fruitful conversation and discussion might be: how low can you go? And how would one regularize an earlier first communion age? And the transparochial implications of such earlier first communion?
      
      As for future issues facing us:
      
      I think of a lot more.
      
      Ecumenical relationships.
      Service of women in the church.
      Adiaphora.
      
      I think that infant communion will remain a sidebar squabble, latched on to by a few, but rejected by most [for, in my opinion, good reason].
      
      I think we have much larger fish to fry going forward.
      • Mar 30, 2007 09:31:04 Re: Infant Communion - John Frahm
        Issues I think we will face before long:
        
        1. revisiting the individual and disposable cups issue
        2. the grape juice issue
        3. lay ministry
        4. order of creation wrt men and women in church
        5. gospel reductionism in modern form
        6. proper treatment of reliquiae
        7. recovery of private confession and absolution
        8. justification by grace through faith
      • Mar 30, 2007 06:03:44 Re: Infant Communion - Pr. H. R. Curtis
        Hi Rev. McCain,
        
        What do you make of this (quoted in my way-too-long post above): "As for I Cor. 11:28 (which is the real obsticle among the conservative brethren: they are afraid that infant communion would erode closed communion) here's what Luther says (LW 54.58) "When in I Corinthians [11:28] Paul said that a man should examine himself, he spoke only of adults because he was speaking about those who were quarreling among themselves. However, he doesn’t here forbid that the sacrament of the altar be given even to children [pueris]."
        
        +HRC
        • Mar 30, 2007 09:38:49 Re: Infant Communion - John Frahm
          I think we put too much weight on I Corinthians 11 as THE basis for closed communion. Closed communion is absolutely correct, but if the emphasis is put on "examine yourself" then it puts it into the realm of the individual. I think we also have to draw on I Cor 4:1-2; Hebrews 13:17 and other passages. The pastoral stewardship of the sacrament is an important facet of the practice. It also preserves the external nature of receiving the sacrament from the Good Shepherd has guided by the undershepherd. Pietism wanted to direct the focus inward and make readiness into a mood, and effectiveness or its being "special" into a frequency issue. So then we end up with four times a year or once a month or bi-monthly celebrations being thought of as normal or ideal in our day. We still bear the scars of suffering at the hands of the Piet Cong.
        • Mar 30, 2007 08:42:31 Re: Infant Communion - Rev. PTM
          Hi Pastor C:
          
          It's an interesting comment as so many of Luther's comment are. But I do not think it pertains to the issue at hand. I think it is a great quote however to use in the more helpful conversation we need to have about earlier age of first communion. I don't think Luther is correct. And we know his practice was such that he clearly did insist on examination of all who would present themselves before the altar to receive the Lord's body and blood. This is clear from the practice of the congregation in Wittenberg. Luther did not insist on private confession and absolution before each reception of the Supper, but his practice was surely a lot healthier than our practice today. [Now there's a big old can of worms for you to open Pastor P!].
          
          I think it is more important for us to heed the chief teacher of the church's of the Augsburg Confession's words when he writes in the Large Catechism:
          
          For it is not our intention to admit to it and to administer it to those who know not what they seek, or why they come.
          
          (Sacrament of the Altar, par. 2; Triglotta)
          • Mar 30, 2007 09:51:26 Re: Infant Communion - Pr. H. R. Curtis
            In general I think it is good to try to read an author's works together as a whole and assume that he does not contradict himself. Therefore, if we read the statement from the Chief Teacher of the AC which you quote here alongside the bit from the Table Talk that I quoted above, I think we can see that Luther himelf (as Luther says St. Paul was doing) is here obviously speaking against willfully ignorant adults - and even lousy priests! I just don't think that these passages have anything directly to do with infant communion. At best it's a wash: because in the Table Talk Luther admits that pueri can't examine themselves in the way St. Paul instructs in I Cor 11, but he says commune them anyway. . .
            
            (an aside: I suppose one could easily argue that since infants have stronger faith than we (see those statements from Gerhard above), then they also know, in the knowledge of faith, more about the Sacrament than we prideful adults!)
            
            In the same way, we could find all sorts of statements from the Reformers that say we shouldn't baptize somebody until they believe - but they would, of course, be speaking of adults.
            
            So I think the Confessions just don't speak directly to this question. They speak on a whole host of issues that influence this question -but they don't speak of it directly. So I think we tread lightly and respectfully with one another as we try to hash it out. I wouldn't want to break fellowship with the Japanese Lutheran Church, for example, simply because infant communion is tolerated there (or so are the reports that I've heard - admittedly hearsay).
            
            FWIW, what I'm most comfortable with right now is what Pr. Cwirla said below about the Passover. As soon as somebody asks for it, give it to them.
            
            +HRC
        • Mar 30, 2007 06:41:09 Re: Infant Communion - Braaten
          Even if the examination text holds for all, examination (understanding and discernment) is the Holy Spirit's job according to St. Paul in 1 Cor 2. I find this difficult to argue against.
          
          I, too, and uncomfortable with infant communion; however, I don't know if it's because I'm a product of the former way, or because it isn't biblical. With 1 Cor 2, I find that I'm leaning more toward the former.
• Mar 30, 2007 04:40:38 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
  What can be said but "Amen"? I think you've nailed that one.
  • Mar 30, 2007 07:40:47 Re: Infant Communion - wmcwirla
    I agree that this will be a contentious issue, especially given the mobility of people as they move from congregation to congregation.
    
    I think the matter of age limits, which is ultimately a legalism like unto the Baptist "age of accountability," can be avoided simply by letting the baptized children tell you when they are ready to commune. I view this as the work of the Holy Spirit working through Baptism to create a hunger and thirst for the Body and Blood of Christ.
    
    While I don't want to engage in theology by analogy, the Passover meal is instructive. There is no age at which a child take part in the Passover, he simply does as a child of Israel. I can't imagine cramming Passover lamb down the throat of an unweaned child, nor can I imagine slapping the hand of a youngster who reaches in for his rightful share of the lamb. I also note from Exodus 12 that catechesis goes on at the Passover table.
    
    What has always troubled me is how we can commune the mentally handicapped adult who functions at the level of a six year old but not the six year old.
    • Apr 01, 2007 00:22:24 Re: Infant Communion - The Rev. J. Rinas
      I appreciate Pr. Cwirla's Passover comment. Whenever a Baptist tells me that a baby can't repent, I refer him to the nursing infants in the Ash Wednesday OT. I think it was St. Paul who spoke, thought, and reasoned like a child when he was a child. I suppose he also repented and participated in other activities like a child would. Paul also mentions that "all" passed through the Red Sea and ate the same spiritual food. Sometimes when Lutherans make objections, I wonder if it is nothing other than pure rationalism in Lutheran terms.
    • Mar 30, 2007 09:25:50 Re: Infant Communion - Pr. H. R. Curtis
      I like this line, Cwirla. And I think it's better than you give it credit for: it's theology by typology, not analogy; which is a pretty strong way to argue. See Paul in Eph. 5 for another example...
      
      +HRC
      • Mar 30, 2007 11:36:20 Re: Infant Communion - wmcwirla
        Yeah, I know. All theology is analogy, in a manner of speaking. And typology is just a specialized form of analogy. I was simply anticipating the counter-argument ahead of time, since I hear it all the time.
        
        St. Paul pushes things even to the point of allegory (Galatians 4:21ff). And yes, I already know the response to that one: "But you are not St. Paul."
        
        Weary of all trumpeting,
        wmc
        • Mar 30, 2007 13:02:08 Re: Infant Communion - weedon
          I think that your response is the only reasonable one I've heard yet that does not create another artificial line in the sand. I love it! It makes sense, and no one can accuse it in anyway of violating the Symbols (though I am by no means persuaded that communing baptized infants would be in violation of the Symbols). Best of all, it MIGHT even be workable.