> Frater: (Love the e-mail address 'Lexorandi...). The point that I am
trying to stress here is that if we really believe that sacraments work
'ex operate...' then having confirmed (Firmung) a child at Baptism as
the Greeks (and now some Anglicans since 1979) do ,there is no need for
a later repetition of the earlier rite. It smacks, to be honest, of
something almost Anabaptist, that AC's are horrified by, and that is the
idea of the 'gathered Church' (though in fact I suspect that that is
what we are becoming in some places now to some degree), and it has the
taint of 'now I'm grown up or now I'm really-----. One of the reasons
that the Greek Church's people are so firmly wedded to their Church is
in part because it is part of their 'DNA' if you will-they cannot
imagine their lives without it. I once met a man that was a Greek
Lutheran. I have to confess that I looked at him like he was a Uranian.
I also knew, many years ago, an Egyptian Presbyterian-and a Bulgarian
Methodist! The little ones will 'prove' their status when they continue
to participate in the life of the Church and adhere to her rules and
regulations in matters of attendance, marriage and the like.This issue
of paedocommunion should be widely discussed. I like it. I understand
that you are a teacher at one of the REC seminaries; woul;d you tell me
(on or off line) a little about your work. I spent many years teaching
philosophy and religion in college. Blessings. GDVW+
n
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
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to
> <faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>
-----------------------------------------
This email was sent using FREE Catholic Online Webmail.
http://webmail.catholic.org/