Paedoconfirmation and paedocommuion

There are some topics just about guaranteed to cause a dust-up among Lutherans (try bringing up the Semper Virgo in the Lutheran Confessions, and sit back and watch the sparks fly). The Confessing Evangelical brought up one of these the other day: the age of confirmation and first communion. I made a series of longish comments on that thread and John H suggested that I "wump them up" into a post of their own here at All The Fulness. So here it is -- all "wumped up" with no place to go.

Confirmation and first communion is a very confusing, and confused, area in Lutheran (and Western, generally) theology and practice. It has to be admitted that Lutheran practice has been inconsistent, and the theological basis for that practice has never been articulated well.

First, about confirmation ...

... In the early Church, baptism, confirmation, and first communion were always done together, in a single rite of Christian initiation. The unified rite of baptism/confirmation was understood to effect regeneration and to bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were not thought of as two "different" sacraments (if for no other reason than that the term "sacrament," and the whole taxonomy of sacraments and sacramentals had not been invented yet); but since the Son and the Holy Spirit have distinct, but complementary, roles in the economy of salvation, the two actions of being united to the Son and receiving the Holy Spirit may properly be distinguished, even though they happened in the same rite.

The minister of baptism/confirmation was the bishop, who at that time was the shepherd of all Christians in a particular city, gathered together in one congregation. The difficulty began when the Church grew too large and spread out to maintain the simple correspondence of one city -- one congregation -- one bishop. Multiple, ancillary congregations were set up, with a presbyter acting as the minister of the sacraments as the bishop's delegate. In the East, baptism, confirmation, and the eucharist were all delegated to the presbyter; but in the West, only baptism and the eucharist were delegated, while confirmation continued to be reserved to the bishop. From this decision flowed all of the confusion in the West over confirmation and first communion.

People were baptized without confirmation, because they had to wait for the bishop's visitation to receive confirmation. And from that point forward, baptism and confirmation were not only distinguished from one another, but actually separated from one another, not only temporally but theologically. Worse, baptism itself then came to be regarded as somehow incomplete, as not fully incorporating a person into the Church. For if there is a later, separate rite bestowing something that a person that he did not receive in baptism, then baptism itself must be somehow lacking.

Such was the confused theology and practice concerning the relationship between baptism and confirmation that our Lutheran fathers inherited. The rite of confirmation as it existed at the time of the Reformation had lost its integral connection with baptism. The Reformers focused in on the essential thing: that when new believers are born again through the Church's ministry of Word and Sacrament, both incorporation into Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit are given. Luther and the Reformers attribute both effects to the sacrament of baptism, without any specific ceremony (e.g. chrism or the laying-on of hands) to symbolize the gift of the Holy Spirit. In my opinion, this was historically and liturgically incorrect -- the truly right thing to do would have been to restore the unity of baptism and confirmation as one rite. But theologically, I think they were right (for through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith -- AC V). In our Lutheran theology, baptism is understood as complete initiation into the Church and into Christ, bestowing both union with Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The only difference between baptism as understood in the Lutheran Church and baptism/confirmation as practiced in the early Church is that we don't have a particular ceremonial expression of the gift of the Holy Spirit. But the theology, the intent, and the effect are the same.  (And our Orthodox and Catholic friends cannot claim, by the way, that a particular ceremonial expression of the gift of the Holy Spirit is necessary, because the practice of the Church varies widely with respect to the specific ceremony used:  chrism; the laying-on of hands; stretching out the hands over the newly-baptized without actually touching them; etc.  If the Church has been free to use a variety of ceremonies, no one can claim that any one of them is divinely-instituted.)

Given this history, and given the Lutheran theology about what happens in baptism, it is clear that whatever confirmation is in the Lutheran Church, it is not the same thing that was called "confirmation" in the early Church.  It does not have the same theological basis, the same intent, nor the same sacramental effect.  It just happens to have the same name.  So to affirm or deny that what was called "confirmation" in the early Church is a sacrament is not at all the same thing as to affirm or deny that what Lutherans call "confirmation" is a sacrament.  And more importantly, whether one believes that "early-Church confirmation" is a divinely-instituted sacrament or not, there is no doubt that "Lutheran confirmation" is a ceremony of human invention.  We have never claimed otherwise.  So what kind of sense does it make to set up a humanly-devised ceremony as a barrier to the sacrament by which our Lord delivers the forgiveness of sins and the life of the Kingdom to His people?

Second, about admission to Holy Communion:

The connection between confirmation and first communion was, I think, originally due to the notion that baptism without confirmation was somehow incomplete. If a person has not been fully initiated into the Church (by having received the gift of the Holy Spirit), how can that person receive Holy Communion? But if baptism is rightly understood as full initiation, both in the Christological and pneumatological dimensions, then what more needs to happen to enable a person to receive communion? You're either in Christ or you are not. If you aren't, you daren't approach the altar; but if you are, the priest ought not to turn you away.

Why, then, do our pastors not commune infants and young children?  The usual explanation, I think, is that children do not have the understanding necessary for the faith to "discern the body" in the sacrament of the altar.  As John H said in a comment on the thread that started this, 1 Corinthians 11:27ff ... strongly implies that some degree of understanding and belief is *ordinarily* necessary ... "faith in these words" ... implies some understanding of those words.

But I do not think we want to identify faith with understanding, or worse, to make faith dependent on understanding -- Credo ut intelligam and all that. As soon as we do that, we cut the ground out from under infant baptism. Faith is, of course, a gift of grace, through Word and Sacrament - not the product of our intellect and thus dependent on our understanding. He has faith in those words who has received that faith through Word and Sacrament, not just he who understands the words (shall we turn the mentally retarded away from the altar?).

John H also objects that it represents a major change in the practice of ... at least the western church.  But as is clear from my discussion above, I think there is a serious problem with the practice of the western Church, in that the original liturgical and theological unity of baptism/confirmation was broken.  Theologically, we Lutherans are clear on the sufficiency of baptism as the rite of initiation; we ought to be consistent and uphold baptism as the only gateway one must pass on the way to the altar.

Comments

[Cheryl]

Hi Chris,

Your post was excellent. I've printed it off to show to the elders and pastor of my Church.

This topic is of particular interest to me, since I have myself been barred from communion, theologically speaking for roughly ten years. And was wondering how theology (ie what one believes) pertains to this? If baptism is the gateway to communion, what of those who do not believe in the real presence, should they be allowed to communion in the Lutheran Church? And what about individuals such as myself who does not agree 100% with the Confessions, can I go ahead and take communion too? I know I'm asking a relatively personal question here, but I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.

Thanks.

[Michael]

Dear Chris Jones,

I hope I sent my email of the other day to your correct address. Did you receive it? Contact me: grailpriest at verizon dot net.

Michael

[weedon]

Chris,

One thing that is easy to overlook is that LITURGICALLY Lutherans have always confirmed at Baptism. Precisely after the application of the water, the pastor lays his hands upon the head of the newly baptized and prays: "The almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has given you the new birth of water and of the Holy Spirit and has forgiven you all your sins, strengthen you with His grace to life everlasting. Amen."

This has always been a feature of our Baptismal rite, and in the LSB the laying on of hands may be supplemented by anointing with olive oil.

Significantly, again referring to the rite in LSB, the laying on of hands that takes place in the separate rite of Confirmation involves the exact same words: "The almighty God and Father..." Similarly, during the Easter Vigil at the "remembrance of Baptism" when the community renews its renunciation of Satan and again confesses the baptismal Creed, the pastor speaks this exact same blessing over the people, and in our place we do so with the sprinkling of water.

Further, the Lutheran Baptismal rite still essentially points to the ancient unity of Baptism-Confirmation-Communion by its final words: "Peace to you." This is a direct "link up" to the Sacrament of the Altar.

FWIW.

Bill

[Chris Jones]

Father Weedon,

One thing that is easy to overlook ...

Actually, I hadn't overlooked the Lutheran liturgical witness to the unity of baptism/confirmation. I thought I remembered including a reference to it in this post, but after searching about a bit I remembered that I had brought it up in an e-mail exchange with the inestimable Bill Tighe.

After Bill read this post, he e-mailed me and (among other things) he wrote:

I am a bit puzzled how you would defend historically the line that you take, viz., that the Holy Spirit is given in water baptism (alone).

To which I replied:

That is not exactly the line that I am taking (although it is close). It is not that the HS is given in water baptism alone, but that baptism and confirmation are not two rites, but one rite with a dual intent and a dual effect: to unite the catechumen to Christ and to bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Dix says much the same thing, referring to the early rite of baptism/confirmation by the one name "baptisma".) The Lutheran rite is the same: one rite with a dual intent and effect. Since the intent and effect of the Lutheran rite are the same as the early "baptisma", I infer that the Lutheran rite corresponds to the unified baptism/confirmation rite of the early Church. The only difference is the presence or absence of a specific ceremonial with which the gift of the HS is associated -- but not the absence of the intent to bestow the gift of the HS.

In the classic Lutheran liturgy of baptism, the immersion is followed immediately by the laying-on of hands, though without an explicit formula identifying this ceremonial with the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, the neophyte is spoken of from that point forward (and not before) as having received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(The reference to Dix is to a lecture on The Theology of Confirmation in Relation to Baptism given by Dom Gregory Dix in 1946. Bill Tighe, who seems to have taken on the stocking of my theological library as a personal mission, generously sent me a copy of this lecture (which, like all of Dix's work, is excellent).)

[weedon]

I should have known you would NOT have missed that! *Confirming* your take on the unitary nature of the rite (pardon the pun!) is the following notice in the rubric of Holy Baptism: "While making the sign of the cross during the blessing after the Baptism, olive oil may be used to symbolize the sealing with the Holy Spirit for salvation (Eph 1:13-14)." (LSB Agenda, p. 5)

[William Tighe]

Interesting exchange. Now if you could get your hands on another, earlier, work by Dix on the same subject -- *Confirmation Or The Laying-on of Hands* (1938) -- a work so rare that I have never been able to purchase a copy and which it took me months to obtain a decade ago through Interlibrary Loan, we could discuss the related issue of whether the laying-on of hands without unction was regarded, by any Father prior to Tertullian, as sufficient to constitute that liturgical "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" which accompanied (either immediately before, as in the old Syriac tradition, or immediately after, as everywhere else) Water Baptism.

[Chad]

Interesting to read some Lutherans discussing this.

Tommy Lee makes the case that paedocommunion was the practice of the church until about 1500. If that's true then John H.'s objection on the basis of the change in practice might better be applied to the switch from paedocommunion, not back to it.

It is said of "a man must examine himself", that an infant cannot do this. But, neither can a woman, as she is not a "man". Thankfully we don't bar women from the Lord's Table on the basis that no woman can examine "HIMself". We know the Bible says that a man must work if he wants to eat, but obviously we don't apply that to infants either.

Also, I think its important to say that allowing the little children to receive Communion does not in any way correspond to to allowing non-confessing adults to partake. Baptism publicly announces God's ownership and membership in his covenant community, but a contrary profession any time after must be recognized.

[William Tighe]

It certainly was not the practice of the "Western Church" till 1500, and had probably ceased in the ambit of Latin Christianity by 800 AD, and maybe much earlier. It has remained the practice of the East to the present day.

[Joel]

A belated comment. I'm happy to report that my children have always been allowed to take Holy Communion in the LCMS churches we've attended and that from very tender ages. We simply asked the pastors of those churches beforehand and none were willing to turn Christ's little ones away.

[David Whalen]

Great post. I agree. If our infants can understand the gospel by the Spirit in baptism, then surely they will understand the Eucharist by the Spirit. I spoke about this last year with some professors at Concordia, FT. Wayne, and they agreed and believe the we should follow the Orthodox practice in this.

Dave