www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Church sui iuris and canonical ascription

When I was in the Antiochian Archdiocese, I was told the same thing. I was also told that chrismation supplied what was lacking in terms of marriage -- that is why, to my knowledge, the Antiochians do not marry converts who have been married before they convert. The chrismation is seen to regularize everything.

I do however have a question -- I have tried to find historical precedence for this approach (i.e., that chrismation makes up what is lacking in other sacraments) and have failed. Of course, this does not mean that they don't exist -- it just means I have not found them yet (Otherwise, why would the Church have the service/practice of conditional baptism?)

I suppose it depends upon our understanding of chrismation itself. I would be interested in any thoughts that any one has on the relationship between chrismation and the other sacraments and especially interested in any historical perspective anyone could offer.

How can one who is not baptized receive the other sacraments I find this strange to say the least.
Stephanos I

My understanding - at least in a Catholic situation - is that without a certificate of baptism from a parish, the candidate you mentioned would always be conditionally baptized.

Jesus' own words were "born from above by water and the Spirit". I make no judgement as to the state of the person's soul - certainly he or she is going based on the guidance of his or her priest, but this notion that Chrismation can somehow "cover" whatever was lacking in the incomplete mystery of baptismal regeneration seems a bit far fetched...especially when one considers the importance of Holy Baptism in the economia of salvation. If one is baptized in such a way that does not follow the command of Christ, how can that be overcome except by the proper fulfillment of the command and celebration of the sacrament?

Gordo, who is perplexed...

My understanding was that the AOA required proof of baptism, and if it could not be found or provided, then baptism was the manner of reception. This was told to me by the priest I know best in that jurisdiction. He also said there was a general rethinking of the exercise of ekonomia in regards to receiving converts due to changes in baptismal formulas in some churches. I think that is along the same lines of their pulling out of the NCC. I know this same priest has blessed marriages that took place in other churches, though I don't know the manner of the rite for this. I've never heard a single soul put forth the idea that Chrismation does anything but complete a baptism done in irregular circumstances, including of course an emergency baptism peformed by an Orthodox layperson.

We were married in a civil ceremony before converting to Orthodoxy, and our priest was fairly insistent that we get a sacramental marriage and so we were crowned in the church.

An English version for the blessing of the marriage of a formerly heterodox couple now embracing Othrodoxy can be foudn in Father David Abramtsov's Abridged Euchologion.

If everything else is in order, but there is some occult defect in someone's reception of a sacrament -unknown to the recipient - it is common teaching that ecclesia supplicet. This is expressed rather beautifully in the ordinaition words that

"The Holy Spirit always heals what is infirm and supplies what is wanting . . ."

If, however, the defect should come to light, it must then be remedied sacramentally.

Fr. Serge

Dear knowledgable brothers in Christ,

Please pardon my ignorance, but I always wondered: in Roman Catholic infant baptism, are the babies chrismated with oil, as they are in the Orthodox church?

If they are, is it just on the head with a sign of the cross? (Not that there is anything wrong with that--perhaps Orthodoxy goes somewhat overboard in oiling the whole body of the child?)

If Roman Catholic baptism chrismates in the same way, then why do converts need to be rechrismated?

Thanks for a response,
Alice

I have a "piggy-back" question to Alice's. I was present at the reception of a convert into the Latin Church recently and I noticed that the priest annointed him with oil when he was received. Was that chrism? Or, another blessed oil?

Dear PrJ,

I do hope that someone sees BOTH of our questions, and responds!

Regards,
Alice

I'll help a bit

Babies are annointed yes - but they are not Confirmed until somewhere around the time of their First Communion [ in the UK that is ] In the USA I understand they are not Confirmed till teens.

Adults being Received are taken through a process called RCIA and then at their Reception [ normally at the Easter Vigil ] and so they then receive all the Sacraments of Initiation at the same time

I trust I have not confused you both further - the UK does vary in some ways from the USA

So, if I understand you correctly, in terms of adult converts, the priest administers Confirmation/Chrismation? I thought that in the West confirmation/chrismation was reserved for Bishops. Am I wrong?

So, if I understand you correctly, in terms of adult converts, the priest administers Confirmation/Chrismation? I thought that in the West confirmation/chrismation was reserved for Bishops. Am I wrong?

In the Latin Church, infants are anointed with the Oil of Catechumens before the Baptism and with Chrism after the Baptism, but this anointing with Chrism is not considered Chrismation/Confirmation, although it is surely a historic vestige of it.

The anointing with the Oil of Catechumens is done on the breast, that with Chrism on the forehead.

In the case of adults, whether they are unbaptizied catechumens received with the full Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults including Baptism/Confirmation/Eucharist or baptized converts received through Confrimation/Eucharist, it is the priest who Confirms in these cases. Usually this occurs at the Vigil Mass of Pascha.

Fr. Deacon Lance

You are not wrong.

In the West, confirmation is ordinarily held to the bishop. The bishop may choose to allow priests to confirm certain groups of people. (For instance, the bishop might allow the priest to confirm converts but reserve to himself all baptized Catholics.) This is one of the factors which led to the separation of the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation (because a priest could baptize before the bishop got there to confirm, meaning the time lag between the two grew longer and longer.)

In the East, Chrismation was not held to the eparch. Instead, the Holy Myron used is made and distributed by the eparch and the priests may baptize and chrismate. This allows the mysteries to be performed together and in infancy.

I can only tell you about RC practice the UK - correction Scotland

Here Priests will normally Receive all adults and will Baptise [ if required] Confirm and administer Holy Communion at the same time.

Young people , in the Archdiocese of Glasgow are not necessarily Confirmed by their Bishop - the territory is too large for that so at least 1 Priest in each Deanery is deputed to Confirm these young people. They never Confirm the youngsters in their own parish though.

In practice now , things are changing and in Glasgow our Children are baptised and annointed as noted by Fr Deacon Lance but they receive the Sacrament of Confirmation now BEFORE the Sacraments of First Confession and First Holy Communion.

Confirmation is intended to be given about the age 7-8 - usually sometime before Christmas and then they make their First Confession during the following Lent followed by First Holy Communion in May.

Many Dioceses in England are also following this 'timetable' now - so that all the Sacraments of Initiation are given closely together.

I know that it's not yet the practice in the USA

Wondering,

The new rites since Vatican II commit Confirmation of catechumens and adult converts to priests, more specifically to the pastor, who needs no permission, it is assumed. I don't believe the bishop can abbroagte this general permission granted in the law. The law also however retains the pratice of the bishop conferring Confirmation on those baptized as infants and specifies it occur around age 7 but in the US some continue to use it as a Catholic Bar Mitzvah and delay it until teen years.

Fr. Deacon Lance