In a message dated 8/22/2003 12:11:26 PM Central Daylight Time, 
mward@... writes:

<<But it is interesting that you mention not confusing chrismation and
 confirmation.  While the Eastern Church doesn't have an exact parallel
 to confirmation, there is a period of instruction that corresponds to
 our confirmation classes.  Yet at the end of this period, there is no
 formal liturgical "rite" of initiation into the Church.  It is simply
 seen as learning what it means to be a part of the Church.>>
 
DKD:  IMO, it's to their loss not to have a liturgical rite of Confirmation 
subsequent to catechism, and it's to our loss not to have a distinct rite of 
"Chrismation" (in association with Baptism) and thus, in principle, a discipline 
which naturally assumes paedocommunion.  

Perhaps I'm one of those guys who fancies having his cake and eating it too, 
but I'd rather like to think that I'm one of those who sees an opportunity to 
turn a vice into a virtue.  

Hence, a separate rite of Confirmation need not be understood as detrimental 
to a unified rite of Initiation (baptism/chrismation/eucharist), nor should 
the revival of a post-baptismal anointing (in conjunction with the traditional 
signing of the Cross) be understood as rendering the later rite of Confirmation 
redundant.

Regards,
Daniel