"Chrismation" in the Orthodox Church

[runningdude]

I read recently that the Orthodox sometimes use “Chrismation” to receive Catholics into communion with the Orthodox Church, and also to bring lapsed members back into communion.

As Catholics, we usually equate “Chrismation” with our “Confirmation”, but is this strictly the case? My possibly flawed understanding is that the Orthodox do not define your “sacraments” as rigidly as we Catholics do, instead referring to them as “sacred mysteries” that confer our Lords graces in a manner beyond our comprehension.

Now, we Catholics believe that Confirmation can only be conferred once in one’s lifetime, but Anointing of the Sick can be applied at anytime, though usually only when sick .

Catholics believe that Anointing the Sick forgives sin, and restores one’s communion with church, in addition to providing spiritual strength in the face of illness. Confirmation does neither, though it does strengthen the soul. So the use of “confirmation” to receive lapsed members is problematic to our theology.

However, two sacraments, are very similar in form (at least the anointing with oil on the forehead), so is it possible that the “Chrismation” that you use to restore members to the Church might be more equivalent to our anointing of the sick, than to our confirmation?

An alternative form to your sacred mystery of anointing of the sick perhaps?

I know that some Orthodox don’t believe that Catholic priest confer any sacraments at all, haha, so I’m just wondering if this scenario might be a solution to the relatively small ecumenical dilema that I presented. Its probably a far fetch solution, but I’m simply hoping to gain a better appreciation of Orthodox theology, so I’d appreciate explanations for any errors in Orthodox teachings that I may have made. Thank-you!

 

[searn77]

I read recently that the Orthodox sometimes use “Chrismation” to receive Catholics into communion with the Orthodox Church, and also to bring lapsed members back into communion.

As Catholics, we usually equate “Chrismation” with our “Confirmation”, but is this strictly the case? My possibly flawed understanding is that the Orthodox do not define your “sacraments” as rigidly as we Catholics do, instead referring to them as “sacred mysteries” that confer our Lords graces in a manner beyond our comprehension.

Now, we Catholics believe that Confirmation can only be conferred once in one’s lifetime, but Anointing of the Sick can be applied at anytime, though usually only when sick .

Catholics believe that Anointing the Sick forgives sin, and restores one’s communion with church, in addition to providing spiritual strength in the face of illness. Confirmation does neither, though it does strengthen the soul. So the use of “confirmation” to receive lapsed members is problematic to our theology.

However, two sacraments, are very similar in form (at least the anointing with oil on the forehead), so is it possible that the “Chrismation” that you use to restore members to the Church might be more equivalent to our anointing of the sick, than to our confirmation?

An alternative form to your sacred mystery of anointing of the sick perhaps?

I know that some Orthodox don’t believe that Catholic priest confer any sacraments at all, haha, so I’m just wondering if this scenario might be a solution to the relatively small ecumenical dilema that I presented. Its probably a far fetch solution, but I’m simply hoping to gain a better appreciation of Orthodox theology, so I’d appreciate explanations for any errors in Orthodox teachings that I may have made. Thank-you!

No, our “Chrismation” is strictly the same thing as your “Confirmation.” What you call “Anointing of the Sick,” we call “Holy Unction.”

 

[Hesychios]

Confirmation has always been repeatable in the eastern Catholic churches.

However, after the Latin Catholic church took over portions of the various eastern Catholic churches it made them stop, so you will find that the twenty or more modern Eastern Catholic churches have been ‘Latinized’ in this regard. The Orthodox Eastern Catholics have continued the ancient practice.

Confirmation and Chrismation are the same sacrament.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

First of all, the whole issue of placing a question related to Orthodox Christianity on a “non-Catholic section” is something that has really hit home with me. I would like to register my peaceful protest against this. Orthodox issues do not deserve to be relegated here. Nothing would happen if they were put back on the Eastern Catholic section - Eastern Catholics often understand themselves as “Orthodox in union with Rome” anyway.
This is simply short-sightedness, and entirely offensive to Orthodox and many Eastern Catholics, period. Please do not tell us that we shouldn’t be so ready to take offense. I’ve seen how readily RC’s take offense at the slightest hint that their traditions, even non-dogmatic ones, are being questioned.

OK, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, Orthodoxy does indeed receive lapsed members back into the fold by means of Chrismation.

So Christians who apostatized from the faith, or who went after heresies, or who went into schism etc., would all need to be chrismated before they could be received back into the Church as active communicants.

I remember when four Russian soldiers and former POW’s from Afghanistan visited Toronto - they had become Muslims to save their lives and so had to be chrismated again by the Orthodox priest who was always with them at the time.

Chrismation reflects a particular Grace after Baptism whereby we are enabled to live the life of the Church, her sacraments and liturgical life in Christ. As this Grace to so live was rejected by a Christian, he or she is anointed again to signify being restored to that life.

The Orthodox Church emphasizes to a heightened degree the need to be in communion with the Church and to live the life of the Church as the Body of Christ for salvation and sanctification. There are other instances when Confession only would be an appropriate way of reconciling with the Church.

In the days of the Ottoman Empire, Orthodox Christians who publicly renounced Christ in favour of Islam and who then returned to the Church would be Chrismated. However, because their disavowal of Christ was public, they were often encouraged to go the next step and publicly declare for Christ before the Turkish authorities. This would mean automatic martyrdom, of course. Such individuals who agreed to offer themselves as martyrs for Christ in this way would often go to such islands as Chios where holy monastics would train them in asceticism to prepare them for the torture that awaited them.

One such “martyrdom coach” was St Nikephoros of Chios who had the candidates sleep on the ground and otherwise harden their bodies to what lied ahead (including beating of the soles of the feet with bamboo sticks and hanging by one’s ribs on suspended hooks).

Alex

 

[runningdude]

First of all, the whole issue of placing a question related to Orthodox Christianity on a “non-Catholic section” is something that has really hit home with me. I would like to register my peaceful protest against this. Orthodox issues do not deserve to be relegated here. Nothing would happen if they were put back on the Eastern Catholic section - Eastern Catholics often understand themselves as “Orthodox in union with Rome” anyway.
This is simply short-sightedness, and entirely offensive to Orthodox and many Eastern Catholics, period. Please do not tell us that we shouldn’t be so ready to take offense. I’ve seen how readily RC’s take offense at the slightest hint that their traditions, even non-dogmatic ones, are being questioned.

Woah! I only put it here because if I put it in the** liturgy and sacrements** forum, where I was originally going to put it, someone else would have yelled at me. I tried to write the question as respectfully as possible to convey the deepest respect for traditions that are so close to ours, yet admittedly and purposefully NOT in communion with the Catholic Church! I’m trying to better understand the theological causes for this separation…

Now that I got that off my chest , I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut .

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Woah! I only put it here because if I put it in the** liturgy and sacrements** forum, where I was originally going to put it, someone else would have yelled at me. I tried to write the question as respectfully as possible to convey the deepest respect for traditions that are so close to ours, yet admittedly and purposefully NOT in communion with the Catholic Church! I’m trying to better understand the theological causes for this separation…

Now that I got that off my chest , I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut .

I apologise then . . .

Easterners can be so sensitive, you know.

Especially those people in New York . . .

God bless! Alex

 

[runningdude]

I apologise then . . .

Easterners can be so sensitive, you know.

Especially those people in New York . . .

God bless! Alex

Now that we got that out of the way , please allow me to ask some follow up questions:

I guess I’m trying to understand the Orthodox beliefs regard the sacred mysteries. Do you define them as rigidly as we Catholics do? In the Catholic Church we have exactly seven sacraments, and each one confers certain graces. However in Orthodoxy, I have heard rumors that other rites are counted among the sacred mysteries, for instance, I heard that coronations of kings is sometimes counted. Is this accurate? Forgive me if this is totally ludicrous, but I thought I read this on an Orthodox website.

Back to Chrismation/Confirmation, the Catholic magesterium has taught that “Confirmation” can only be given once. The Orthodox teach that “Crismation” can be applied multiple times. Only one side can be true if the chrismation strictly refers to confirmation! However is this truly the Orthodox understanding of the chrismation?

Is the intent of the Orthodox priest to confer what we Catholics know as the sacrament of confirmation when they receive back lapse members, or is the the Orthodox priest’s intention to confer a sacred mystery involving chrism that restores one with communion to the church? Or is it some other intention entirely? I’m not trying to promote my theory, but just understand the Orthodox way of thinking when it comes to the sacraments.

Does each sacrament/mystery have a defined form/ritual procedure and a firm understanding of which graces that each sacrament confers, as in Catholicism? Or is the understanding more fluid, and if so, how?

As I said, my understanding could be totally way off base, leading to me asking totally ludicrous questions, but I’m sincerely not trying to bate or lead. Please don’t bite

 

[Nine_Two]

This is, sadly, the proper forum for this.

 

[Hesychios]

Now that we got that out of the way , please allow me to ask some follow up questions:

I guess I’m trying to understand the Orthodox beliefs regard the sacred mysteries. Do you define them as rigidly as we Catholics do? In the Catholic Church we have exactly seven sacraments, and each one confers certain graces. However in Orthodoxy, I have heard rumors that other rites are counted among the sacred mysteries, for instance, I heard that coronations of kings is sometimes counted. Is this accurate? Forgive me if this is totally ludicrous, but I thought I read this on an Orthodox website.

The term we use is Holy Mysteries, or Sacred Mysteries as you write, which comes from ‘Mysterion’. The word sacrament comes from the Latin ‘Sacramentum’, but we are in agreement that these two terms refer to the same phenomena. That does not necessarily mean that we understand them in exactly the same sense, nor can we assume that we do not understand them in the same sense. I think we can allow for some difference in perspective without condemning each others theories.

The Orthodox see no intrinsic distinction between a sacrament and a sacramental. The difference is by degree (not in any way by kind). In other words one might say that there is a sliding scale of importance in the holy mysteries (in a very general way). The enumeration of the greater mysteries into seven is (more or less) a convention, which probably arose first in the west (perhaps in the scholastic period, perhaps not, I don’t know) and Orthodox have no problem with that for purposes of discussion. But that does not mean that there are only seven actual sacraments, there could be hundreds, maybe thousands.

This is something I learned not as an Orthodox Christian, but from my Byzantine Catholic priest years ago.

Back to Chrismation/Confirmation, the Catholic magesterium has taught that “Confirmation” can only be given once. The Orthodox teach that “Crismation” can be applied multiple times. Only one side can be true if the chrismation strictly refers to confirmation! However is this truly the Orthodox understanding of the chrismation?

Yes.

Chrismation is absolutely what the Latin church calls Confirmation, and it has always been repeatable. It should be noted that even your church formally recognizes Chrismation of the Orthodox as Confirmation.

Is the intent of the Orthodox priest to confer what we Catholics know as the sacrament of confirmation when they receive back lapse members …

Yes.

Does each sacrament/mystery have a defined form/ritual procedure and a firm understanding of which graces that each sacrament confers, as in Catholicism?

Yes. Although the ritual and formulae will vary from church to church. The Eastern Catholic churches will use the ritual of their Orthodox sister churches, not the norms of the church at Rome.

 

[Nine_Two]

I guess I’m trying to understand the Orthodox beliefs regard the sacred mysteries. Do you define them as rigidly as we Catholics do? In the Catholic Church we have exactly seven sacraments, and each one confers certain graces. However in Orthodoxy, I have heard rumors that other rites are counted among the sacred mysteries, for instance, I heard that coronations of kings is sometimes counted. Is this accurate? Forgive me if this is totally ludicrous, but I thought I read this on an Orthodox website.

Sacraments, usually called Mysteries, are not rigidly defined, while seven has come into common parlance, they have never been officially numbered. One could claim there are only two, or any other number, and still be Orthodox, a priest once told me that the best way to look at the Mysteries of the Church is those things which allow us to partake in the life of the Church, and through the Church, Christ himself.

Back to Chrismation/Confirmation, the Catholic magesterium has taught that “Confirmation” can only be given once. The Orthodox teach that “Crismation” can be applied multiple times. Only one side can be true if the chrismation strictly refers to confirmation! However is this truly the Orthodox understanding of the chrismation?

Yes.

Is the intent of the Orthodox priest to confer what we Catholics know as the sacrament of confirmation when they receive back lapse members, or is the the Orthodox priest’s intention to confer a sacred mystery involving chrism that restores one with communion to the church? Or is it some other intention entirely? I’m not trying to promote my theory, but just understand the Orthodox way of thinking when it comes to the sacraments.

By Chrismation one received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not necessarily permanent though, if you wish it to leave you then it will, which is why Chrismation is necessary after apostasy.

Does each sacrament/mystery have a defined form/ritual procedure and a firm understanding of which graces that each sacrament confers, as in Catholicism? Or is the understanding more fluid, and if so, how?

It is more fluid, in that what constitutes a Mystery is not dogmatically defined, nor is any specific ritual necessarily tied το most. I guess Baptism is pretty firm, and the Eucharist, although in the case of the Eucharist the anaphora can vary, although it tends to be fairly similar no matter where you go.

As I said, my understanding could be totally way off base, leading to me asking totally ludicrous questions, but I’m sincerely not trying to bate or lead. Please don’t bite

I’d say the biggest issue with your questions is that you’re looking at it from a Latin perspective, that everything must follow a certain set formula, that isn’t the Orthodox view.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sadly?

This is, sadly, the proper forum for this.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I honestly didn’t understand what he meant. I think I do now. Also, it’s a shame that there aren’t any good Orthodox forums on the internet. Anglican ones either. The Catholics definitely have done one heck of an outstanding job as I think CAF is pretty much unrivaled. Christianforums and some of those other ones don’t have an eighth of the play and attention and passion or posting that CAF has. They’ve done a great job here.

 

[searn77]

I honestly didn’t understand what he meant. I think I do now. Also, it’s a shame that there aren’t any good Orthodox forums on the internet. Anglican ones either. The Catholics definitely have done one heck of an outstanding job as I think CAF is pretty much unrivaled. Christianforums and some of those other ones don’t have an eighth of the play and attention and passion or posting that CAF has. They’ve done a great job here.

There are a couple good ones I found online, one that’s pretty similar to CAF & another that leans more towards theology. There’s also a Byzantine Catholic forum which is okay too.

 

[Bluegoat]

I notice, I think it was the OP, that wondered if chrismation and unction were related. THis thought struck me too, if we understand both to be a matter of laying on hands to give strength for a kind of trial. I may be importing my own leanings here, since in the Anglican BCP unction also includes Confession, and I can kind of see all of these things - chrismation after apostasy, confession, and laying on of hands to confer the Holy Spirit, as closely related.

I guess I don’t have a question really, but I’d be interested in any thoughts.

 

[Nine_Two]

But Chrismation isn’t just after apostacy, it is also after joining the Church for the first time.

 

[runningdude]

Sacraments, usually called Mysteries, are not rigidly defined, while seven has come into common parlance, they have never been officially numbered. One could claim there are only two, or any other number, and still be Orthodox, a priest once told me that the best way to look at the Mysteries of the Church is those things which allow us to partake in the life of the Church, and through the Church, Christ himself.

Yes.
** By Chrismation one received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not necessarily permanent though, if you wish it to leave you then it will, which is why Chrismation is necessary after apostasy.**

It is more fluid, in that what constitutes a Mystery is not dogmatically defined, nor is any specific ritual necessarily tied το most. I guess Baptism is pretty firm, and the Eucharist, although in the case of the Eucharist the anaphora can vary, although it tends to be fairly similar no matter where you go.

I’d say the biggest issue with your questions is that you’re looking at it from a Latin perspective, that everything must follow a certain set formula, that isn’t the Orthodox view.

Ah, so the intention is to confer the Holy Spirit, which is definitely the intention in confirmation! This is intriguing that there is no set number of sacraments - I will definitely have to look into how and when the seven sacraments the Catholic Church were defined. I suspect it might be dogmatic, but I’m quite curious now

Now that my spam filter is letting CAF through again, and I can read your responses - Thanks everyone!

 

[Bluegoat]

But Chrismation isn’t just after apostacy, it is also after joining the Church for the first time.

Yes, I understand that. I was including that in my head, just not in my text - bad writing on my part.

 

[Hesychios]

… This is intriguing that there is no set number of sacraments - I will definitely have to look into how and when the seven sacraments the Catholic Church were defined. I suspect it might be dogmatic, but I’m quite curious now

I would be very interested to learn more about the history of how the major sacraments were delineated. I don’t see this as a point of contention.