Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No one is trying to prove your faith to be incorrect.Is there no rule forbidding others to use our own church doctrine books to try and prove our faith to be incorrect?
Sorry if I'm wrong here.
Hence the Small Catechism, yes?Qoheleth wrote:
Did you bother reading v.2 of the LC? It says this:
LilLamb219 said:Did you bother reading v.2 of the LC? It says this:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
2] and which every one who desires to be a Christian and go to the Sacrament should know. 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.[/FONT]
"Vague quotes"...thats kinda silly. They are specific quotes of the Lutheran Confessions which are directly related to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. How they are applied and why is the delicate matter.Proto said:I think it is misusing the Book of Concord, Martin Luther, etc. to use vague quotes, and suggest he (they) agreed wit infant communion. Using extra-BOC letters and quotes, we can see that they did not ever really support it.
Seajoy said:Is there no rule forbidding others to use our own church doctrine books to try and prove our faith to be incorrect?
Sorry if I'm wrong here.
Very interesting. Thank you.I think it is misusing the Book of Concord, Martin Luther, etc. to use vague quotes, and suggest he (they) agreed wit infant communion. Using extra-BOC letters and quotes, we can see that they did not ever really support it.
I cannot side with the Bohemians in distributing the Lords Supper to children, even though I would not call them heretics on that account.
- Martin Luther, Letter to Nicolaus Hausmann
They have also erred who have wanted to use this Gospel [John 6:55-58] as a reason to give the Sacrament to young children [infants?] and they have also done this. As you have heard, the Lord is saying nothing here about the Sacrament of the Altar or of a physical eating. He is speaking of a spiritual eating which happens only through faith in Christ which He calls here eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Through this faith the man is incorporated into Christ and becomes completely one loaf with him.
- Martin Luther, The Feast of the Holy Corpus Christi"
It is clear that one cannot deal with infants through the bare preaching of repentance and remission of sins, for that requires hearing (Rom. 10:17), deliberation and meditation (Ps. 119), understanding (Matt. 13:51), which are not found in infants. With regard to the Lords Supper Paul says: Let a man examine himself [1 Cor. 11:28]. Likewise: Let him discern the Lords body [1 Cor. 11:29], a thing which cannot be ascribed to infants. Moreover, Christ instituted His Supper for such as had already become His disciples. In the Old Testament infants were circumcised on the eighth day, but they were admitted to the eating of the Passover lamb when they were able to ask: What do you mean by this service? (Ex. 12:26). There remains therefore [for infants] of the means of grace in the New Testament only the sacrament of Baptism.
- Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II
We often exhort our people who have repented to partake frequently of the Lords Supper. However, we do not commune the infants, for Paul says: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Lords body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself [1 Cor 11:28-29]. And since the children are not able to examine themselves and, thus, cannot discern the Lords body, we think that the ceremony of the baptism is sufficient for their salvation, and also the hidden faith with which the Lord has endowed them. For through this faith they spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, even if they do not, in the communion of the supper, physically eat it.
- The Tübingen Theologians [including Jacob Andreae], Correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople [1577], Augsburg and Constantinople
I think it is misusing the Book of Concord, Martin Luther, etc. to use vague quotes, and suggest he (they) agreed wit infant communion. Using extra-BOC letters and quotes, we can see that they did not ever really support it.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as argumentative, but I see now it came across that way. I meant "vague", only in that the quotes provided do not explicitly condone infant Communion, but some quotes, along with the context of the extra-BOC writings seem to strongly suggest that it was not a practice that was followed by the early Lutherans."Vague quotes"...thats kinda silly. They are specific quotes of the Lutheran Confessions which are directly related to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. How they are applied and why is the delicate matter.
Q
Please understand that Q's motives are honorable. Even when he was a Confessional Lutheran, he understood much of the Book of Concord in a somewhat different context than some of us. His posts were often annoying, but always thoughtful and thought-provoking. I think they still are (thoughtful and thought-provoking, that isThank you! He has a habit of doing just that here and it only breeds bad feelings. Why he persists and is allowed to do is puzzling to a lot of us.
Protoevangel said:Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as argumentative, but I see now it came across that way. I meant "vague", only in that the quotes provided do not explicitly condone infant Communion, but some quotes, along with the context of the extra-BOC writings seem to strongly suggest that it was not a practice that was followed by the early Lutherans.
I'm curious though...at what age was Confirmation/First Communion among the early Lutherans? Would it be as late (13 or 14 years) as is common today?Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as argumentative, but I see now it came across that way. I meant "vague", only in that the quotes provided do not explicitly condone infant Communion, but some quotes, along with the context of the extra-BOC writings seem to strongly suggest that it was not a practice that was followed by the early Lutherans.
Well, this does give pause...thank you for the cite.
I wonder if this quote or at least its thinking and intent would have been applied likewise in regard to infant baptism???
Nonetheless as it pertains to the Lords Supper, it does present issues with the other citations. Thanks again.
Q
He has proven otherwise here too many times.Please understand that Q's motives are honorable. Even when he was a Confessional Lutheran, he understood much of the Book of Concord in a somewhat different context than some of us. His posts were often annoying, but always thoughtful and thought-provoking. I think they still are (thoughtful and thought-provoking, that is).
No suggestion about it, its obvious. The historic Lutheran Church (as far as I know) has never communed infants.
Im not saying its right or wrong, it just is.
The BoC quotes though are fascinating in that they do not address the issue head on and specifically. But on the other hand, just like in other issues, it was not a matter of contention. The RCC didnt (as a regular practice by this time) commune infants so it makes perfect sense that the Lutherans did not either.
I'm curious though...at what age was Confirmation/First Communion among the early Lutherans? Would it be as late (13 or 14 years) as is common today?
LilLamb219 said:NO, it would NOT ever be applied to infant baptism as it is found under the section of tThe Sacrament of the Altar.
LilLamb219 said:If you do not look at these things, then you aren't really using the confessions as they are truly stated and trying to manipulate the texts...which is a big no-no especially here in TCL.
I'm curious though...at what age was Confirmation/First Communion among the early Lutherans? Would it be as late (13 or 14 years) as is common today?
A fourth broad generalization is that the usual age of the catechumen who partook of his first Communion was quite early when compared to present-day practice. Indeed, age was not regarded an important criterion. The major criterion was the catechumen's readiness to partake of the Sacrament. Almost invariably the church orders used an expression such as "when the children have come of age." According to German law, this was at age 12; according to Roman canon law, it could be interpreted variously as from 7 to 12.
Where a reference to confirmation age appears, the age is rarely higher than 12. Thus Hohenlohe, 1577, and Ansbach, 1564, specify 12. The same age is suggested by Allstedt, 1533, and Lindow in Pomerania, 1571. The former states that persons over 12 are to be subject to a personal tax, while the latter requires 12-year-olds to contribute to the pastors support. In both instances, it may be assumed that the age was set at 12 because persons were normally confirmed or communicants by that time. Lower Austria, 1571, sets a range between 10 and 15. Brandenburg-Ansbach-Kulmbach, 1556, indicates that the age for first Communion was to be 12 or over. Braunschweig, 1542, suggests that the former custom of confirming at 10 or 11 be retained. The Church Order of Sweden, drawn up by Laurentius Petri (1499-1573) in 1571, states that no child younger than 9, or 8 at the least, should attend the Lords Supper. For younger children can have little exact knowledge of the Sacrament. During the 16th century the children in Denmark were often admitted to Communion when they were only 6 or 7.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?