(Some thoughts Pr. Weedon originally expressed on LutherQuest):
(The question was raised whether Infant Communion could be discussed on KFUO.)
I don't think the discussion of this topic belongs on the airwaves yet!
It is far too easily misunderstood. What needs to be done at this point, in my opinion, is for Lutheran theologians (clergy and lay) to do more than repeat the arguments that were framed from Scripture AFTER the practice was abandoned and to grapple with the data before them - above all the theological data (since only the Word of God can establish articles of faith) and the historical data.
I should have stated earlier that I do indeed believe that baptized
children spiritually eat of Christ in the sense of faith as intimated by the earlier half of the Bread of Life discourse in John. I do not believe there is some absolute necessity that they be communed, since the statement "unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink of His blood you have no life in you" cannot simply be referred to the Eucharist, because we know that the following statement cannot either: "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." Yet Paul specifically mentions an eating and drinking of our Lord's Body and Blood that does not result in eternal life, but judgment. The answer to the enigma is clearly that he to "eat of Christ's flesh" in John 6 means "more" than oral reception of the Eucharist. In short, I don't think St. Augustine got that wrong.
However, I also do not believe that there is any justifiable Scriptural grounds for the current argument that it is a violation of 1 Cor. 11 to commune the children. Luther expressed himself quite clearly on this - and I do not think he was wrong. If Luther was correct on his take, then there really is room for Lutheranism to actually study the topic, and indeed to come to a different conclusion than Lutheran orthodoxy did (which, remember, still refused to condemn the early church for its practice).
On the question of current practice, my chief concern would be to return the Church to the norm championed by Pr. Bender in his wonderful Catechetical series - that once a baptized child knows the primary texts of the chief parts, and once they can say what they receive and why they wish to receive it, they should be communed. It may result in communing children as young as five or as old as fifteen (or thirty or forty!). I would not hesitate to call the current practice of forcing a child who is hungering for the Sacrament to wait until he is 14 an abuse.
(The question was raised whether this would not result in individual
instruction and thus a huge burden to the pastor)
Actually, if one heeds the Catechism, the instruction primarily belongs to the parents ("as the head of the family should teach it to his household in a simple way") - the pastor examines the children so instructed. Of course, the pastors did indeed teach the Catechism, but differently then than now.
One way used at the time of the Reformation was to set aside the old
ember days (four times a year) and use them for preaching through the Catechism (preached through on three days each in a two week time frame). This is what was done in Saxony. Thus the entire Catechism was preached through four times a year, and young and old were invited and encouraged to attend.
Some Church Orders seem to provide a regular Sunday afternoon liturgy for the work of catechesis. Missouri's first Agenda contains the complete order for the Catechetical service. It went like this: Hymn of the Day, recitation of the primary texts of the entire catechism in the form of questions and answers (What is the first commandment? You shall have no other gods. What is the second commandment? etc.) Then two children would stand before the whole congregation and recite an entire portion with its meanings. Then the hymn "Lord, help us ever to retain." Then the pastor steps forward to the altar, offers a brief prayer, and then he instructs the congregation on that part of the Catechism, this closes with an antiphon, collect, benediction, closing hymn verse and silent prayer.
What I appreciate about both of those was that it kept the catechetical task in a worship framework. It was a fundamental shift in thought about catechesis that moved it from the sanctuary to a classroom, and I believe it has really damaged the whole notion of catechesis among us. It shifted us from "let us render thanks and praise to Him who has done such great things for us!" to "do you know the right answers?"
