In a message dated 8/22/2003 9:08:48 AM Central Daylight Time, 
mward@... writes:

<<Regarding paedocommunion.  I think a good argument for it can be made on
 the basis of Patristic writings, and the theology of the Covenant.>>

DKD:  Paedocommunion was not unknown in the West.  Recall that Elizabeth 1 
was baptized, confirmed, and communed at 3 days of age.  Also, in the 8th 
century Alcuin counseled the Gallican churches to continue 
baptizing/chrismating/communing infants despite the fact that the newly imposed Roman rite that was 
displacing their own rites insisted on Confirmation at the hands of a bishop (an 
innovation to them), which even by that time was done some years after Baptism.

<< First, at what age do you begin?>>

DKD:  This I leave to the discretion of the parents.  As for me, I didn't 
introduce my children to Communion until they could walk (rather than being 
carried) to the altar.  I counsel parents to wait at least until their children are 
eating solid food.  I would make one exception to that general rule of thumb 
in the case of Baptism, where I think that it is conducive to the original 
unity of the rites of initiation to touch an infant's lips with consecrated wine.

<< Second, what do we do with Confirmation, which we've always viewed as a
 prerequisite to Communion?>>

DKD:  I think it is a mistake to view Confirmation as a pre-requisite to 
Communion.  Remember the counsel of Alcuin to the Gallicans noted above.  
Confirmation only became a "pre-requisite" of sorts when local western councils, 
concerned for the neglect of confirmation, began to forbid communion to people who 
weren't confirmed -- which proved to be impractical because bishops were 
notoriously negligent in their duties (hence the "ready and desirous" clause in the 
BCP).  Do note that the Roman Church of today no longer views Confirmation as 
a pre-requisite to Communion.

<< Again, at least in much of the East we seen
 consistency as a child is baptised and confirmed in the same service
 (the priest administering confirmation), then given Communion.>>

DKD: It's funny that this should come up on this list now because a few of us 
have just been discussing this in another forum.  I would suggest that it is 
misleading to view eastern Chrismation as the *exact* liturgical/sacramental 
equivalent of western Confirmation.  Confirmation arose in the West from a 
peculiarity exclusive to the local Roman rite of Initiation, namely that the Roman 
rite contained TWO post-baptismal anointings where the rest of the early 
rites had only one.  To this day, the Roman baptismal rite includes a 
post-baptismal anointing with chrism by the priest immediately following Baptism (the 
vestige of this is found in the signing of the Cross at Baptism in the BCP).  
However, Confirmation evolved from the second anointing (accompanied by laying on 
of hands) which was performed by the bishop.  This is a feature that the 
Eastern churches never had, so one could say that the East does not really have a 
sacrament of Confirmation, though (just to confuse matters) they do see 
Chrismation as essentially effecting the same grace.

Regards,
Dan