# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S64
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

64 SYNODICAL REPORTS

ing the sacrament. For example, with reference to the abuses of the
mass, the Augsburg Confession warns on the basis of Paul’s in-
struction in 1 Corinthians | 1:27 “whoever uses the sacrament un-
worthily (wer das Sakrament unwiirdiglich braucht) is guilty of the
body and blood of Christ” (XXIV, 12; cf. Ap XXIV, 49; XV, 41,
LC Il, 5; V, 2). That more than personal worthiness based on faith
in the heart is being referred to is also clear from the Latin text:
“But Paul severely threatened those who dealt unworthily (qui in-
digne tractant) with the Eucharist when he said. ...”” Private masses
come under this admonition (XXIV, 13).

All of this is to say that while “worthy use” also involves faith
in the heart, faithful stewardship of the sacrament requires prepa-
ration beyond a bare determination that the communicant believes.
To speak of preparation for the sacrament involving self-examina-
tion and instruction to the end that one might commune “worthily”
in no way sets up an additional requirement beyond repentant faith
as a “requirement” for worthiness. Quite the contrary, such prepa-
ration belongs to the faithful use of the sacrament.

The author’s conclusion that “the unbeliever is the only unwor-
thy guest” is reinforced, he believes, by Article XXII of the Apol-
ogy of the Augsburg Confession, the subject of which is the giving
of both kinds to the laity. Though admitting that this article does
not deal directly with the question of infant communion, the author
holds that since the theological argument which requires commu-
nion under both kinds is valid, “then this section also makes infant
communion the only Lutheran position” (Truly Worthy, 22). This
“theological argument” is that God gives “the whole sacrament to
the whole church.” And, so goes the conclusion, this means giving
the Lord’s Supper also to infants.

The author’s argument here would be a cogent one only if he
could show that the confessional writings teach that all Christians,
in every case and without restriction, are to be admitted to the
sacrament. This, of course, is not the meaning of Apology XXII,
which intends only to say that both kinds are to be given and re-
ceived not only by the priests, but also by the laity. The referents of
“all” in “all of the church” are priests and laity, and “part” in “part
of the church,” the priests. And, as the Confessions elsewhere make
abundantly clear the referent of “laity” in the case of the Lord’s
Supper is always laity who “know what they seek or why they
come” (LC V, 2).

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 Chris-
tians nor admitted to a sacrament” (Preface, 2). In its commentary
on these words Truly Worthy reveals what appears to be a major
assumption which undergirds opposition to the tradition of exclud-
ing infants from the sacrament: “You cannot refuse one admission
to the sacrament on the basis of these words without also refusing
them a part in the church” (Truly Worthy, 24). It is therefore nec-
essary for the author (without rejecting Luther's provision outright)
to interpret Luther’s reference to “knowledge” as referring to “a
theological comprehension,” rather than to “a verbal comprehen-
sion” (presumably meaning comprehension which can be articu-
lated), and hence to conclude that infants possess the former: “the
baptized infant knows the chief parts” (24; emphasis added).

Such a line of argumentation is based on a very strained reading
of Luther’s text. “For this reason,” Luther immediately states after
the above-cited quote, “young people should be ... diligently drilled
in their practice” (3). The father of the household is to “ascertain
what they have learned. ...” (4). Surely, the knowledge being re-
ferred to here is an articulate or verbal comprehension.

Moreover, in the Shorter Preface Luther clearly did nor intend
to say that ignorance of Christian doctrine as summarized in the
chief parts of the catechism necessarily makes one an unbeliever
and therefore outside of the one holy Christian church. On the con-
trary, Luther’s concern is that those who “come to Baptism and the
Sacrament of the Altar and exercise all the rights of Christians” and
“wish to be Christians” be so “in fact as well as in name”(5—6).'7
This means instruction in the various parts of the catechism, so that
they may be classified among or referred to as (gezdihlet ... werden;
sit referendus) Christians—just as one who is a craftsman may be
accepted and considered competent by knowing the rules and prac-
tices of his trade.

The above-mentioned assumption, which shapes Truly Worthy’s
reading of Luther’s comments in the Shorter Preface, reveals the
central theological issue regarding infant communion. Its author
appears to be saying, in effect, that to refuse admission to the sacra-
ment is to excommunicate him/her.'* This, of course, presupposes
further that the basis for admission to the sacrament is faith in the
heart (fides qua), not the faith which is confessed (fides quae).
Given this understanding, it is difficult to see how, ultimately, any-
one could be admitted by pastors to the sacrament, or how anyone
could be refused, since by its very nature faith in the heart is hidden
to human eyes or knowledge. Only “[TJhe Lord knows those who
are his” (1 Tim. 2:19). As our Confessions remind us, “In this life
... the kingdom of Christ has not yet been revealed”(Ap VII and
VIT,17).

Truly Worthy cites a third set of confessional texts (AC XXV, 1;
Ap XV, 40; XXIV, 29; SA III, VIID) which indicate that the
Lutheran practice is to admit to the sacrament only those who had
been previously examined and absolved. In explaining this prac-
tice, the author makes three basic points: 1) “The purpose (of
XXV,1) is not to demand confession or examination from the one
who would commune, but to make sure that the gospel nature of
the sacrament ... is made as clear as possible to them” (25); 2) In-
fants “have been examined and absolved, and even instructed ... in
Baptism itself” (25); 3) Instruction and examination are acts “re-
quired of the pastor,” but are not laid down as “a requirement ...
for those who receive the Supper. ...” (26).

The numerous non sequiturs present in this line of thinking only
reveal how far the confessional evidence must be stretched to make
a case for infant communion. First, it appears to be Truly Worthy’s
view that it is permissible to require examination (“there was to be
... examination”) as long as one’s purpose is right. Then, there is
an injunction to examine (with the right purpose, of course), but
infants are exempt, for they have already been examined in Bap-
tism itself (presumably infants are themselves exempt from a “ver-
bal” confession before the sacrament is administered to them!—cf.
AC XXV). And then, preachers are required to carry out an exam-
ination before a person may commune, yet a person may commune
without a preacher examining him or her.

3. Concluding Comments.

In its introductory section, Truly Worthy challenges the logic of
the synodical catechism’s statement that infants must not be given
the sacrament because they are included among those who “are un-
able to examine themselves.”'? Truly Worthy states: “Yes, a man
must examine himself. This premise is undeniable, for it is inspired.
But the second premise, that the infant cannot examine himself, is
neither inspired nor is it based on a thorough study of Scripture and
the Confessions”(2). As the summary of this position presented ear-
lier in this evaluation makes clear, the proponent of infant commu-
nion believes the biblical and confessional evidence supports a
“self-examination” of which infants are capable. This has necessi-
tated the development of a definition of 50ktpatev which mini-
mizes, if not removes entirely, any cognitive functions on the part
of individuals. The author has sought to provide us textual evidence
that the discernment called for by Paul does not involve the intel-
lect.

The issue here is not merely having a proper “theology of the
sacraments,” deducing what is thought to be the right relationship
between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and then determining
practice. The question is, what precisely do the Scriptures them-
selves teach regarding the theology and practice of each, and of
their relationship. We are bound to the biblical text, and however
cogent we may believe our speculations to be, we do not present
them as biblical and confessional without clear evidence from those
texts that deal with the subject at hand.

This caution has special pertinence to the issue of infant com-
munion. The materials forwarded to the commission provide no ev-
idence, from those texts that speak directly about the Lord’s Sup-
per, that suggests the inclusion of infants. In fact, the one text in
the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:17-34) that deals explicitly with the
practice of the Lord’s Supper in an early Christian congregation
(and in an immediate context where concern is registered about a
proper use of the sacrament) expressly mentions that communicants