Holy Orders and Marriage

~Anastasia~ said:

The reason I did not understand the delay of Chrismation (since it was said here that Confirmation is the same thing) is that we see it this way ...

Baptism ... being placed in the Body
Chrismation ... receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit
Eucharist ... Communion with Christ (and the Body)

All of these happen at the same time when a person is received into the Orthodox Church.

So ... I thought Confirmation was a matter of having a person who had been baptized as an infant to reach an age where they themselves commit themselves to Christ. That seems quite reasonable. We don't have a Sacrament for that that I am aware of (though one would begin going to Confession, perhaps) but we do recognize personal involvement with one's faith upon reaching sufficient age to be essential.

But if Confirmation = Chrismation, then you have a situation where the person is received into the Body, but is delayed some years from sacramentally receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit or Communion with the Lord and the Body.

I understand needing the Bishop and this not being practical/possible - anyone can baptize in time of necessity - but as a normal course of events, it just seemed strange to me.

Click to expand...

Chrismation and confirmation are not quite the same thing, I think. Anointing as part of the post-baptismal rites is the closest we have to chrismation. Confirmation (the laying on of hands with prayer by the bishop) is really not the same.

When an adult is baptised in my tradition we do all of these things at the same time. (Baptism, anointing*, confirmation and first communion). When an infant is baptised both confirmation and first communion are delayed. And yes, we recognise that this has some problems and there has been some discussion at high levels as to whether our practice of confirmation in particular should change, but for now this is what it is.

*Anointing is optional for Anglicans, but I assume Catholics do it as a matter of course.

Paidiske said:

Chrismation and confirmation are not quite the same thing, I think. Anointing as part of the post-baptismal rites is the closest we have to chrismation. Confirmation (the laying on of hands with prayer by the bishop) is really not the same.

When an adult is baptised in my tradition we do all of these things at the same time. (Baptism, anointing*, confirmation and first communion). When an infant is baptised both confirmation and first communion are delayed. And yes, we recognise that this has some problems and there has been some discussion at high levels as to whether our practice of confirmation in particular should change, but for now this is what it is.

*Anointing is optional for Anglicans, but I assume Catholics do it as a matter of course.

Click to expand...

I can better understand this.

I just took "Confirmation" to be what it sounds like. It was my understanding that those baptized as infants had to attend some kind of classes first, and I thought it was their own willingness to confirm themselves in their faith.

As I said, we as Orthodox certainly regard that as necessary when one is of sufficient understanding, but I think it happens rather organically for us, and there is no specific Sacrament that I'm aware of.

I'm not looking to point out problems. I was just completely mystified at the idea of baptizing, but not acknowledging the reception of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I misunderstood then. Thank you for your reply.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Holy Matrimony:

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125

Confirmation:

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.89 For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."90

1289 Very early, the better to signify the gift of the Holy Spirit, an anointing with perfumed oil (chrism) was added to the laying on of hands. This anointing highlights the name "Christian," which means "anointed" and derives from that of Christ himself whom God "anointed with the Holy Spirit."100 This rite of anointing has continued ever since, in both East and West. For this reason the Eastern Churches call this sacrament Chrismation, anointing with chrism, or myron which means "chrism." In the West, the term Confirmation suggests that this sacrament both confirms and strengthens baptismal grace.

~Anastasia~ said:

I can better understand this.

I just took "Confirmation" to be what it sounds like. It was my understanding that those baptized as infants had to attend some kind of classes first, and I thought it was their own willingness to confirm themselves in their faith.

As I said, we as Orthodox certainly regard that as necessary when one is of sufficient understanding, but I think it happens rather organically for us, and there is no specific Sacrament that I'm aware of.

I'm not looking to point out problems. I was just completely mystified at the idea of baptizing, but not acknowledging the reception of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I misunderstood then. Thank you for your reply.

Click to expand...

In a way, a child's first confession is a step of showing his / her faith once he / she reaches an age of sufficient understanding.

prodromos said:

Hence the strong whiff of Donatism.

Click to expand...

Indeed, although I would observe that in some respects an RC annulment looks not unlike a canonical divorce in the Orthodox Church from a purely procedural perspective, which is why amoris laetitia troubles me. It was marketed on the basis that we allow divorces, but it does not implement the Orthodox framework of the ecclesiastical court.

*My diocese just nullified my marriage last month, so if anyone has any questions about that process I can probably answer them.

the main difference is that in Orthodox weddings, the vow part takes place before the Sacrament-related event begins, in the western churches they will often include that part in the Sacrament-related event.

Yeah really interesting how intent/inner life/decision fetishism has made inroads into orthodoxy, people looking for ways to "express making the faith your own" etc.

inquiring mind said:

Thanks Paul. So, it just means that clergy is required to perform a marriage, and doesn't mean the bride and groom have to be "saved" to get married. The "marriage sacrament = requirement for salvation" is what is confusing me... I'm probably not making myself clear.

Click to expand...

What does marriage mean exactly? I read a definition on Reddit, but I'm not sure if this applies to other time periods and places. https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FNoStupidQuestions%252Fcomments%252F2j2xkp%252F

inquiring mind said:

Superhero Sam, it sounds as if you're asking a "state" question, which would be best answered by a legal professional... I don't have a clue. But here is a link I found that may help answer your question from one Bible viewpoint.
What constitutes marriage according to the Bible?

Click to expand...

The article didnt explain what marriage is exactly. It is nebulous-the reddit article is more specific.

inquiring mind said:

Sorry, maybe some of the other posters will have an answer for you.

Click to expand...

Did my question make sense? I asked it because to me certain things are just vague.

inquiring mind said:

Your question is OK, finding a right answer can sometimes be a problem. Go back to the site I provided and click on "married" at the end of the first sentence. Maybe that will help some.

Click to expand...

That article wasnt direct either.

Superhero, I'm not sure what you're asking either.

There are different definitions of marriage; religious ones, legal ones, cultural ones and so forth. Which aspect are you particularly looking at?

Paidiske said:

Yes, I was surprised to find that East and West differ on this. In the Western traditions, it is the couple's consent which makes the marriage, not anything the priest does. In Western Christian terms, the only real difference between a church marriage and a secular marriage is that in church the priest invokes God's blessing on the couple.

I believe this has its roots in Roman law, which required the free consent of both parties to consider a marriage legal. (Of course, how "free" that was in all cases is up for debate, but that was what the law stated. And indeed it is what Western secular law continues to state. One thing which always surprises couples I marry, is that I warn them that if they arrive at the wedding already under the influence of alcohol, to the extent that I believe them not to be sober, it would be illegal for me to allow the wedding to continue before they had sobered up. Because if you're drunk, you can't consent!)

But of course, Anglicans don't consider marriage a sacrament anyway, so from our point of view the argument about what makes marriage a sacrament is a bit moot...

Click to expand...

Ahhhh yes the Sacraments as taught in the 39 Articles of Religion

XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Click to expand...

~Anastasia~ said:

(I may misunderstand the nuances for Catholics.)

Click to expand...

You are. You're doing pretty good, though, so I'll be quiet.