In a message dated 8/23/2003 11:37:49 AM Central Daylight Time, 
gdvw@... writes:

<< > I must disagree that the East is somehow defective because they do not
 have a 'Konfirmation' as opposed to 'Firmung'. I grew up with Greek
 Orthodox people and they were a lively, devoted group who rightly
 considered the little ones full members of the Church from the day of
 their Baptism/Firmung (which was often the day of their first HC). There
 is something almost Gnostic about the way some of the West (esp the
 Anglicans)seem to approach Confirmation. I sometimes wonder if they
 really think it a Sacrament so much as an excuse for the Bishop (in the
 East priests are the normative/correct ministers of the sacrament of
 Confirmation) to show up for tea on the Vicarage lawn!. Blessings. GDVW+ >>

DKD:  I appreciate your comments, Father.  My only point is that I don't 
think this has to be an either/or matter.  There is no theological reason why we 
could not keep a rite of Confirmation (at the traditional age) along with an 
understanding that Baptism constitutes one's full inclusion into the Body of 
Christ, which includes (in principle) full "Table privileges."  Liturgically, 
this can be expressed at the earliest moments after baptism with a post-baptismal 
anointing (with oil consecrated by a bishop) at the signing of the Cross, and 
even "first communion" for an infant (by touching consecrated wine to the 
lips).  Thoughts?

Regards,
Daniel