In a message dated 8/24/2003 9:58:41 AM Central Daylight Time, 
gdvw@... writes:

<<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.>>

DKD:  Yes, I understand your point, Father.  But your point would have more 
force if, in fact, Eastern Chrismation and Western Confirmation were identical 
rites.  My earlier point was that they are NOT, given the origin of Western 
Confirmation from a second unction included in the Roman rite that was absent in 
the Eastern rites.  I think we need to go back to the time when the Roman 
rite was first imposed on the rest of the Western Church, particularly in the 
Gallican context.  At first, the Gallican churches continued to do what they 
always did:  (1) baptize, (2) chrismate, and (3) commune altogether.  Only later, 
much later in many cases, did bishops get around to confirming the baptized, 
but they were already considered communing members. Thus, confirmation was 
treated very much like a "commissioning" service of the baptized for adult lay 
service.   Only later did local councils begin to frown on this practice due to 
the neglect of people to come for Confirmation.   For better or for worse, we 
of the BCP tradition inherited this later disdain for Communion prior to 
Confirmation.

Regards,
Daniel