Orthodox and Catholic representatives meet in Rimini

[Robertwilliam]

…
Orthodox Chrismate Orthodox more than once, it is a medicinal … healing sacrament. Digressing a little bit I theorize that Annointing of the Sick is actually just another Chrismation, for another specific purpose (in other words both may have evolved from a common early Christian annointing), but even if not so the comparison can illustrate the sense in which this Mystery is held among the Orthodox.

.

You misunderstand. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the sick IS NOT a re-Chrismation, because the Holy Chrism IS NOT used. Regular blessed olive oil is used.

 

[dcointin]

I was unaware that Chrismation is repeated! I suppose that goes to show how much there is to learn, even after being Orthodox for 6 years

I don’t understand the logic behind that, however. I thought that Chrismation was done for the reception of the Holy Spirit as the seal of Baptism? I’ll do more research on this, but I’d appreciate your thoughts on what Chrismation is, if that’s not too far off topic.

 

[Diak]

Chrismation is not always repeated for Catholics, and there is a significant variance between and even within some Orthodox jurisdictions regarding this practice.

 

[Harpazo]

I was unaware that Chrismation is repeated! I suppose that goes to show how much there is to learn, even after being Orthodox for 6 years

I don’t understand the logic behind that, however. I thought that Chrismation was done for the reception of the Holy Spirit as the seal of Baptism? I’ll do more research on this, but I’d appreciate your thoughts on what Chrismation is, if that’s not too far off topic.

I know that if someone apostasizes then they are sometimes rechrismated along with confession again, but again, it’s a pastoral issue.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nine_Two]

There is no single “Orthodox position”; I know of priests who were received into Orthodoxy from a Greek Catholic Church by simply vesting and profession of Faith (and assumably sacramental confession). No rechrismation.

The Orthodox position is that Chrismation can be repeated, you are correct that there is not a position on when this happens. That is up to the local bishop.

 

[Hesychios]

You misunderstand. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the sick IS NOT a re-Chrismation, because the Holy Chrism IS NOT used. Regular blessed olive oil is used.

I have not misunderstood, I know the chrism is not used for anointing of the sick. The point is a minor one, and I do not wish to derail the thread, but I am personally theorizing that both sacraments originate from a common early practice of anointing as needed. I certainly should have worded it better.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I remember the time when four former Russian POW’s from Afghanistan were visiting here. They were accompanied by an Orthodox priest who re-chrismated them because they had become Muslim when they were captured. I’ve no problem with the traditiion of chrismation for those who have fallen away from the Church.

Alex

 

[mardukm]

I also hope for union, but only with the repudiation of the Filioque and Papal Infallibility/Ecclesiology issues.

Repudiation doesn’t seem possible. I think understanding between all the Churches is both a more realistic and a more holy goal.

Rome’s just too set in her ways at this point to change.

I don’t understand this comment. Does this mean the EO are more willing to give on some issues? IMO, the Latin Church has historically been more willing to bend (i.e., understand) than the EO.

Maybe the best we can hope for in our lifetime is a greater cooperation in social issues, as well as more official agreements in sacramental sharing for pastoral reasons in extenuating circumstances.

Is it probable that any corporate reunions between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will entail further schisms within the Orthodox communions? For example, in the OO communion, the Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches are officially much closer to the Catholic Church than the Coptic Orthodox Church. The EO Alexandrian Patriarchate and the Coptic Orthodox Church have an official relationship better than that between any of the other Churches in the EO and OO communions. The Melkites and the EO Antiochian Patriarchate have a very close relationship. Maybe this will have to happen first.

Or perhaps schisms need not occur. Perhaps we may face a situation not unlike the fourth century where Church A was not in communion with Church B, while both were in communion with Church C.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Robertwilliam]

I have not misunderstood, I know the chrism is not used for anointing of the sick. The point is a minor one, and I do not wish to derail the thread, but I am personally theorizing that both sacraments originate from a common early practice of anointing as needed. I certainly should have worded it better.

If the Holy Chrism is used it is a Chrismation, that is where you misunderstood, you stated that the anointing of the sick is a rechrismation.

 

[crazzeto]

Is it probable that any corporate reunions between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will entail further schisms within the Orthodox communions? For example, in the OO communion, the Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches are officially much closer to the Catholic Church than the Coptic Orthodox Church. The EO Alexandrian Patriarchate and the Coptic Orthodox Church have an official relationship better than that between any of the other Churches in the EO and OO communions. The Melkites and the EO Antiochian Patriarchate have a very close relationship. Maybe this will have to happen first.

Or perhaps schisms need not occur. Perhaps we may face a situation not unlike the fourth century where Church A was not in communion with Church B, while both were in communion with Church C.

Blessings,
Marduk

At least from the outside looking in this looks likely, particularly given a number of very highly anti-catholic converts within EO. We’ve seen how Vatican I and Vatican II both in the West have lead to schism alone… I can’t imagine what would happen in the Eastern Church if all of the sudden their patriarchs started trying to tell the layety “we’re going to corporally unite”… Particularly given this would require a certain understanding of the papacy as well as the filioque which to many of the more staunch EO lay might take the appearance of the abandonment of everything the Eastern Church teaches. While this conclusion would obviously be false, it is never the less unavoidable.

However, I believe the schisms ultimitly would be smaller, and perhaps in the grand scheme of Christian history probably not so long lived.

 

[dcointin]

I think it would lead to significant schisms. Every Orthodox I’ve spoken to about the Catholic Church believes it’s heretical on at least the dogma of the Papacy and Filioque (and many would say others as well) and must return to the Orthodox faith before reunion can occur. If any primate were to declare his intention to reunite his church with the Catholic Church, I believe he would almost certainly be deposed and excommunicated. What would happen from that point I’m not sure. I assume he would be made a primate in an Eastern Catholic Church, and perhaps some parishes and clergy would choose to follow him. What would make matters more interesting is how the states would react in an officially Orthodox country. Would the state agree with the primate and attempt to enforce the reunion? Would it disagree and persecute the churches that followed him? Any thoughts?

 

[mardukm]

If any primate were to declare his intention to reunite his church with the Catholic Church, I believe he would almost certainly be deposed and excommunicated. What would happen from that point I’m not sure. I assume he would be made a primate in an Eastern Catholic Church, and perhaps some parishes and clergy would choose to follow him.

Another question is what would happen if a primate declared his intention to reunite with the Catholic Church, but the Supreme Pontiff refuses it, following HH JP2’s (of thrice-blessed memory) policy of “corporate reunion.” Would he be excommunicated or simply deposed, or given severe penance? And what if his whole flock agreed with him?

Which brings to mind – would a bishop (primate or otherwise) leave his flock to become Catholic? It would seem a bishop would have to be reasonably sure that he has the support of a good portion of his flock before he made the decision. I have in mind the circumstances of Mar Bawai’s translation to the Catholic communion.

What would make matters more interesting is how the states would react in an officially Orthodox country. Would the state agree with the primate and attempt to enforce the reunion? Would it disagree and persecute the churches that followed him? Any thoughts?

Very interesting. That is a dimension I wouldn’t normally think of as an OO, but I guess it would be very relevant to the EO. It has potential relevance for Christians in the middle East in general – how would a Muslim government look upon a more united Christianity? Very interesting to ponder.

Blessings

 

[Robertwilliam]

…Or perhaps schisms need not occur. Perhaps we may face a situation not unlike the fourth century where Church A was not in communion with Church B, while both were in communion with Church C.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is what happened with ROCOR, A Church ( ROCOR) was not in communion with B Church (Moscow Patriarchate) but was in communion with C Church (the Serbian Orthodox) who was in communion with both A & B.