One of the more successful ideas I have employed over the years is the scheduling of special events during the Great Vigil of Easter. The idea isn't really my own: as early as the Fourth Century the catechumenate was presented for Baptism at the Vigil. So I have sought to follow suit, employing the third of the four parts of the Vigil ceremony not only for Baptisms, but more notably, for confirmations. It's kind of scary doing this at first, since people are more inclined to expect confirmations on a Sunday, whether it be Palm Sunday or some Sunday after Easter, and this forces them to come out for another service. It might even be unmanageable in some parishes. But in my case it worked pretty well, and people have grown accustomed to thinking of the Vigil as the Big Day for such things. Admittedly my parish is small, which sometimes works in one's favor.
This year I have no confirmations, though I do have one (pre-confirmation) first communion. In the past, first communions have taken place on Maundy Thursday as a rule. But this year it will be at the Vigil, and that works out just fine, in keeping with my desire to give people more reason for coming to the Vigil.
And this first communion will be a special occasion for me as well: it will be for the youngest communicant I have ever had. Several years ago I began to commune this little four-year-old's big brother, at age five. But she won't be five until summer. A communicant this young is sometimes shy about answering catechetical questions in class, simple as they must be, but her answers ring true.
What do people get when they come up for communion? "A chip," she says. Hm, a chip? What is that chip? A potato chip? "No." A piece of bread? Her head nods. And what is that piece of bread? Silence. What did Jesus say that it is? Silence. He said, This is ____. She finishes: "My Body." So is it Jesus' Body? Head nods. So, tell me, what did Jesus say? Now she answers: "This is my Body." Yes, and what's it for? And so on. This child knows the ten commandments, she knows how to say the Creed, and she knows that the Sacrament is Jesus' Body, for the forgiveness of sins. And she knows it's something she wants. Who am I to forbid this? In our parish I abide by the rule that while confirmation remains at the conclusion of eighth grade, first communion will happen whenever the child is ready, whether early or not.
Fr. Eckardt,
ReplyDeleteThis is great! Please let me ask though,why have a difference between infant baptism and infant communion? If circumcision was a type of baptism and was performed on infants; and the Passover meal was a type of the Lord's Supper and was eaten by the whole family. We as Lutheran's seem to be consistent on one sacrament without being consistent on the other one. I know this is a "loaded" question but know that I come really wanting my young children who have been baptized to enjoy the gifts our Lord has for us in his Holy Supper as well, the forgiveness of their sins.
Also, as receivers of God's gifts and knowledge doesn't play into baptism why should it play into communion? It is God who does the doing. This isn't left over from the Fourth Lateran Council is it?
Thanks so much!
Steve
Steve,
DeleteI think you answer your own question: Passover lamb is not the food of sucking babes. Neither are the earthly elements in the Lord's Supper.
Fr. Cwirla first brought this to my attention, and I am greatly indebted to him for its insight. Everybody can get washed. But there is a time and a season for bread and wine, lamb and bitter herbs.
+HRC
True enough, Heath. I have had similar thoughts, and I find this to be one of the more compelling arguments against infant communion.
DeleteBy the same token, I'm guessing the number of Lutherans who would be in favor of breast-feeding children until they're thirteen or fourteen years old is even smaller than the number of LCMS churches named for the Blessed Virgin.
Ha! Quite right.
DeleteI think Cwirla's point on solid food gives us the terminus a quo. From there, Fr. Fritz has talked it through clearly: one wants to bring folks to the Table as soon as is proper.
So what's proper? I think this is a region of pastoral judgment. Rome's recent statements on this are actually quite good: it's not a church divisive question.
For us here, we require folks to learn from the pastor for 2 years before communing (which we keep tied to confirmation), and they can begin those classes whenever they like. So our age of confirmation-first communion floats based on the judgment of the parents and the pastor for each kid.
+HRC
The lack of consistency of practice in the synod is unnerving. I suggested the idea to folks up our way (where first communion is typically at 14) and they looked at me like I was from Mars. It is bizarre that small churches just to the north will commune 5th graders, and the French churches of the LCC will commune 5 year olds. What's a layman to do?
ReplyDeleteA big part of the problem is found in the fact that consistency is too often sought, not in the catechesis and confession of Christ, but in age and grade level, or in the ability to memorize words. The typical approach, in this respect, is Pelagian at best.
DeleteNo, I'm not saying that everyone who waits on First Communion is a Pelagian; but many of the argument in support of the typical practice are Pelagian.
A layman should honor and respect his pastor, but also be persistent in asking for the means of grace to be administered to the disciples of Jesus. A layman should also pray for the Lord to continue to give good gifts to His Church, and for the wisdom of His Word and Spirit to guide the shepherds of His flock. And a layman should faithfully catechize his own children. Moms already tend to do this more faithfully than Dads do, and all of us can do better.
The faithful administration of the Sacrament includes an ongoing context of catechesis and pastoral care (catechesis itself being a key component of pastoral care). Worthy reception of the Sacrament rests, not upon the cognitive abilities of the communicant, but upon the Word of Christ that is preached and taught by the parents and pastors of the communicant. We don't excommunicate pious Christian adults for their simple ignorance or in-eloquence, but we continue preaching to them, teaching them the Word of Christ, absolving and communing them. We should do the same for younger disciples of Christ, caring for them and supporting their confession commensurate with their capacities.
Those of any age who live openly unrepentant lives, or who persist in confessing false doctrine, should not be communed but called to repentance.
Pastors,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the thoughts expressed. The vocation of teaching our children the Chief Parts does fall primarily to the dad's and we should do better. The concept of infants not being able to eat the passover meal has merit too. My personal thoughts are we should baptize infants, commune much earlier, and confirm more deeply later. The knowledge part I struggle with, my four year old knows quite a bit (Creed, Lord's Prayer, some of the Commandments) but my two year old doesn't yet yet is very two and I would love her to have the gifts of the Eucharist as her sin is apparent as any two year old's would be. She can't commit the sins found in I Corinthians 10-11 but she commits sins in line with her age quite well.
I also appreciate the part about respecting your pastor. My pastor and I have talked about this and we could see how, even in our small church, we could really upset the apple cart among the brethren.
Peace,
Steve
The matter of infant communion is certainly a sticky wicket, and I have also used the breastfeeding / weaning / solid food analogy for quite a long time, actually.
ReplyDeleteThere is a related matter on the other end of life, namely the question of communing someone who has slipped so far into senility as not to recognize the Sacrament any longer. I have been personally not a little conflicted about this on more than one occasion. On the one hand, I don't feel right about giving the Sacrament to someone who, say, thinks it's booze (yes, that has happened to me); on the other hand, I am reticent about withholding it from someone whose intentions I may not be reading properly. At all events, it is really the flip side of the infant communion controversy.
The Church is the Bride of Christ, all of it. And the wedding feast is for the Bride of Christ, is it not?
ReplyDeleteFr. John W. Berg
"Real men wear rose"
Sure, but there are suckling babes at the wedding feast.
ReplyDeleteAnd those babes out of whom the Lord has ordained praise, those babes whose faith is the gold standard of faith are.... the Bride of Christ.
ReplyDeleteFr. John W. Berg
Cf. Walther's Law and Gospel, Thesis XVII
This is the genius in the recent Roman statements. Your argument here is strong. There is no doubt that infants could be worthy communicants. For just this reason it would be unreasonable to divide the Church over this practice.
DeleteBut neither will we allow ourselves to feel that we are doing wrong by saying that it only makes sense to wait for weening before feeding someone solid food and wine. The Lord gives his Bodily and Bloodily presence under the forms of bread and wine. That just doesn't seem to call out for feeding to a two month old; as little as we would imagine a two month old chowing down on Passover lamb.
This is exactly the space for Christian freedom and charity to prevail. The age of first communion is within pastoral judgment and the age has varied from time to time and from place to place.
+HRC
Suckling babes eat what their mothers eat.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but not in the same form.
DeleteForm = accidens?
DeleteSi non in accidentibus, forte in ipsa substantia?
+HRC
Sweet, I'm going to go get plastered.
ReplyDeleteRebekah,
ReplyDeleteYou're awesome.
Bonnie (Mrs. Steve)
Fathers,
ReplyDeleteFr. Futrell has a pretty good article on this that he presented at a winkle and is now at the sems for peer review. Using his article, it seems that infants were communed in the Church for 1200 years and then as the Roman Church grew communing infants became more rare as the Bishops grew more spread. Also, since infants couldn't fully consume a wafer they were only offered the wine. Then the Fourth Lateran Council established an age of seven as an age of discretion and took the chalice away so it wouldn't be spilled. What Rome adopted as liturgical practice was adopted by us later as theological practice as I understand it.
I don't want to split our church, however, our Lord didn't want the children kept from him either. As a dad and a husband with a pregnant wife I really want my kids of any age to receive God's gifts just like their old pop.
Steve
Read this excellent article found on the Motley Magpie Online Journal, entitled "I Believe in the Communion of All the Saints" by Fr. Peter Berg and answer the questions he poses there. (Vol 3:1)
ReplyDeletehttp://hopelutheranfremont.org/motley/v3n1_a6.htm
Fr. John W. Berg