Pedo-Communion

mark46 · Jan 22, 2016

MKJ said:
Confirmation by the bishop directly is the older practice. When that became impractical, the east delegated it to the priest. The west continued to have the bishop come, but not present for every baptism.

In our Anglican diocese, the situation is the same. The bishop is not ordinarily there for baptisms, but is present for confirmations.

~Anastasia~ · Jan 22, 2016

If I may ask, for those of you who separate baptism and confirmation, what exactly does confirmation accomplish sacramentally?

I'm just curious. I would have said that we don't have "confirmation" in the Orthodox Church, but I am told that Chrismation is the equivalent. For us, this involves laying on of the priest's hands, prayers, and anointing with Holy Chrism (blessed by the bishop - ours is actually made and blessed in Constantinople, but I'm not sure whether or not any bishop can make it). The anointing with Holy Chrism is accompanied by the words, "Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" and that is our understanding of the sacramental purpose.

Is confirmation the equivalent then?

MKJ · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
If I may ask, for those of you who separate baptism and confirmation, what exactly does confirmation accomplish sacramentally?

I'm just curious. I would have said that we don't have "confirmation" in the Orthodox Church, but I am told that Chrismation is the equivalent. For us, this involves laying on of the priest's hands, prayers, and anointing with Holy Chrism (blessed by the bishop - ours is actually made and blessed in Constantinople, but I'm not sure whether or not any bishop can make it). The anointing with Holy Chrism is accompanied by the words, "Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" and that is our understanding of the sacramental purpose.

Is confirmation the equivalent then?

Yes, it's the same sacramentally.

You can have the two separated in Orthodoxy, for example if a person has been baptized before becoming Orthodox.

Albion · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
The anointing with Holy Chrism is accompanied by the words, "Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" and that is our understanding of the sacramental purpose.

Is confirmation the equivalent then?

Yes.

MKJ · Jan 22, 2016

All4Christ said:
Ah thank you for the clarification. My bad with not reading the post you quoted more carefully.

I guess it would be accurate then to say that the West kept the bishop there for chrismation (confirmation) yet eliminated the practice on infant communion and separated the timing of confirmation from baptism. The East kept the early practice of infant communion and the timing of performing the chrismation and baptism together, by allowing the priest to be an extension of the bishop (when using chrism blessed by him).

So, I guess it is a matter of opinion on which practice is older when looking at the entire sacrament of baptism, chrismation and communion. The East has a higher emphasis on the unity of Christian Initiation into the Church (baptism, chrismation, Eucharist) and an emphasis on all baptized members being fully initiated into the church no matter the age, while the West places higher importance on the Bishop being present to act as the guarantor.

That said, I see what you meant more now. Thanks again for clarifying.

Yes, I meant older specifically with respect to maintaining the personal contact with the bishop. It's easy I think to see how this would happen - if bishops visited once or twice a year, infants would have in most cases have been baptized earlier, and the bishop could do his part when he was available.

I've never seen anything readily accessible about how this process changed over time, or what the different conditions were. For example, were diocese in the west typically smaller or having better roads? When did the time period between the two sacraments become more stretched out? What caused that to happen?

Something to keep in mind, I think, is that now we think of the regular communication of infants as normal in eastern churches. However, just as in the west, there was a long time when most people did not communicate regularly at all, it was considerd more pious to abstain. There have also been periods where delaying baptism until adulthood was quite common.

So - I don't think we should look at these things and imagine that there is some kind of unbroken and unchanging practice from the earliest days - there have been a variety of practices and approaches within every group. And our own views today undoubtably involve certain pre-supposition and attitudes that come from our own time and place.

~Anastasia~ · Jan 22, 2016

MKJ said:
Yes, it's the same sacramentally.

You can have the two separated in Orthodoxy, for example if a person has been baptized before becoming Orthodox.

Thank you for the reply.

And your statement regarding Orthodoxy is true, but that is simply a case of accepting a former baptism, over which there can be controversy in some jurisdictions.

I was actually glad not to be able to provide details on my baptism after going down many rabbit trails. I am told I am only the third adult to be baptized in my parish in the memory of the parishioners though.

Generally our concern for baptism is "one baptism for the remission of sins." I'm told a possible re-baptism is usually done as a conditional baptism, though mine was not.

But other than already-baptized adults being received without re-baptizing, I don't think it's possible to separate the sacraments in the Orthodox Church? And receiving already-baptized can't really be seen as a rule for understanding, since they had no possibility of being Chrismated. Not only that, but for adults received through Chrismation, the sacrament is considered to fulfill any possible deficiency in the person's previous baptism.

The normal process in the Orthodox Church today is to have Baptism, Chrismation, and reception of the Eucharist all within the same sacramental ceremony.

Thank you again for the reply.

~Anastasia~ · Jan 22, 2016

Albion said:
Yes.

Thank you also, Albion.

I suppose the reason for separation historically then is only because the Bishop wasn't available at baptism?

Forgive me, I'm not seeking to criticize, but I can't see a theological reason to receive one into the Body through baptism, yet not expect the reception of the Holy Spirit at the same time?

I'm afraid I don't understand the "status" of such children with regard to the Church in that case?

All4Christ · Jan 22, 2016

MKJ said:
Yes, I meant older specifically with respect to maintaining the personal contact with the bishop. It's easy I think to see how this would happen - if bishops visited once or twice a year, infants would have in most cases have been baptized earlier, and the bishop could do his part when he was available.

I've never seen anything readily accessible about how this process changed over time, or what the different conditions were. For example, were diocese in the west typically smaller or having better roads? When did the time period between the two sacraments become more stretched out? What caused that to happen?

Something to keep in mind, I think, is that now we think of the regular communication of infants as normal in eastern churches. However, just as in the west, there was a long time when most people did not communicate regularly at all, it was considerd more pious to abstain. There have also been periods where delaying baptism until adulthood was quite common.

So - I don't think we should look at these things and imagine that there is some kind of unbroken and unchanging practice from the earliest days - there have been a variety of practices and approaches within every group. And our own views today undoubtably involve certain pre-supposition and attitudes that come from our own time and place.

Thanks for your explanation! It is good to learn the various perspectives of our respective traditions.

Also, please don't take my comments below as judging your Tradition or the Western Traditions.

That said, the purpose of keeping the three sacraments at one time is not in relation to regular communion, but rather the importance of all three being an initiation to the Church and a process of fully becoming a member of the Body of Christ. Throughout the history of the Orthodox Church, that has remained the same and is an important sacramental process in our view.

The apostolic instruction was to baptize, immediately lay hands on the new Christians for the receiving of the Holy Spirit, and to then partake of the Eucharist. This is from the time of Scripture until today.

The frequency of receiving the Eucharist is not related to the reasons for the timing of the initial sacraments when receiving someone into the church. Also, as Anastasia mentioned, the separation of baptism and chrismation for adults who are converting is unrelated, as a valid form of baptism cannot be repeated. Rather, chrismation fills what was lacking in the previous sacraments.

Please don't take this in as an argumentative post; I'm just explaining our viewpoint as Orthodox Christians.

Albion · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Thank you also, Albion.

I suppose the reason for separation historically then is only because the Bishop wasn't available at baptism?

Forgive me, I'm not seeking to criticize, but I can't see a theological reason to receive one into the Body through baptism, yet not expect the reception of the Holy Spirit at the same time?

I'm afraid I don't understand the "status" of such children with regard to the Church in that case?

In Orthodoxy, grace is infused. It doesn't matter if the recipient understands the whole of what's going on. Who can...completely? So infants are baptized and chrismated, without any instruction, and then communed, too.

In Western Christianity, there is some concern for the individual making a decision for Christ. So although we baptize infants on the premise that Scripture admits of it and that the child needs to be relieved of sin, we also value the act of that individual at some point reaffirming the vows that were once made on his behalf by sponsors. The first Communion is traditionally delayed for this reason and, later, Confirmation follows a course of instruction at a more mature age.

Both Baptism and Confirmation, being considered to be sacraments, confer grace and forgiveness and the recipient receives the Holy Spirit, although it's believed that Confirmation accomplishes this in a special way for facing the challenges of adult life.

~Anastasia~ · Jan 22, 2016

Albion said:
In Orthodoxy, grace is infused. It doesn't matter if the recipient understands the whole of what's going on. Who can...completely? So infants are baptized and chrismated, without any instruction, and then communed, too.

In Western Christianity, there is some concern for the individual making a decision for Christ. So although we baptize infants on the premise that Scripture admits of it and that the child needs to be relieved of sin, we also value the act of that individual at some point reaffirming the vows that were once made on his behalf by sponsors. The first Communion is traditionally delayed for this reason and, later, Confirmation follows a course of instruction at a more mature age.

Both Baptism and Confirmation, being considered to be sacraments, confer grace and forgiveness and the recipient receives the Holy Spirit, although it's believed that Confirmation accomplishes this in a special way for facing the challenges of adult life.

Thank you, Albion. I'm not so far removed from my Protestant roots that I forget the importance of "decision" and indeed, I agree this is important. Of course as Orthodox, we believe that the child must make his own choice(s) to remain on the path his feet have been set upon.

Your explanation helps me understand, somewhat. Thank you for that.

(I would note another advantage I can see in the system of delaying. This does not mean that I disagree with the way the Orthodox Church views the sacraments, or how they administer them. But as an incidental effect, I can see that the delay of some of the sacramental acts gives the person the advantage of being able to remember them as a sort of touchstone event, or reminder. Most Orthodox cannot of course remember their baptism, Chrismation, or the first time they received the Eucharist. As I say, I do agree with my Church theologically, but I did want to acknowledge the advantage other Traditions might enjoy as a result of their practices.)

Thanks again.

Albion · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Thank you, Albion. I'm not so far removed from my Protestant roots that I forget the importance of "decision" and indeed, I agree this is important. Of course as Orthodox, we believe that the child must make his own choice(s) to remain on the path his feet have been set upon.

Certainly so. But that decision-making is not coordinated with the reception of those sacraments as closely as it is in Western Christianity. I think each of these POVs makes sense and is entirely defensible.

~Anastasia~ · Jan 22, 2016

Albion said:
Certainly so. But that decision-making is not coordinated with the reception of those sacraments as closely as it is in Western Christianity. I think each of these POVs makes sense and is entirely defensible.

Correct - it is not at all associated with any sacrament (unless one considered the ongoing life we live in faith, during the course of which we come to receive the Eucharist, absolution, and any other sacraments that might apply to our lives). But no, the sacraments are not closely linked to and dependent upon a one-time (point in time) profession of faith. - edited
(Except as All4Christ points out below) - edited.

(Of course, we are just discussing theologies and sharing. And that's where "defensible" applies. But the important thing my mind goes back to, is that I certainly can't imagine God nit-picking over such details as a reason to "invalidate" anyone's salvation. So ... while I'm interested in learning, that's where my focus goes.

And that prevents me having much more to say about something I'm not familiar with. Thank you for explaining!)

Albion · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Correct - it is not at all associated with any sacrament (unless one considered the ongoing life we live in faith, during the course of which we come to receive the Eucharist, absolution, and any other sacraments that might apply to our lives).

Right.

But no, they are not linked as a one-time dependent event.

"One-time?" Baptism, Communion, Confirmation. These are more like steps in a journey, I'd say.

All4Christ · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Correct - it is not at all associated with any sacrament (unless one considered the ongoing life we live in faith, during the course of which we come to receive the Eucharist, absolution, and any other sacraments that might apply to our lives). But no, they are not linked as a one-time dependent event.

(Of course, we are just discussing theologies and sharing. And that's where "defensible" applies. But the important thing my mind goes back to, is that I certainly can't imagine God nit-picking over such details as a reason to "invalidate" anyone's salvation. So ... while I'm interested in learning, that's where my focus goes. And that prevents me having much more to say about something I'm not familiar with. Thank you for explaining!)

We do have a point where children decide to continue in the faith that is associated with a sacrament (loosely). When they are at an age to understand confession, they need to be properly educated and make that choice to follow the faith on their own and to participate in that sacrament. At that point, regular confession and following of the faith is required for the Eucharist. But yes, generally speaking, we don't have a strict relationship of personal profession of faith with a dependent sacrament.

~Anastasia~ · Jan 22, 2016

Albion said:
"One-time?" Baptism, Communion, Confirmation. These are more like steps in a journey, I'd say.

Sorry, I meant a profession of faith at a particular moment in time.

I think this is where we differ. At least every Protestant denomination I belonged to considered this of utmost importance, while in Orthodoxy it is the staying on the path I would say that is emphasized.

I hope I have not mischaracterized anything. (I think I'll edit that and try to make it less confused - thanks for pointing it out)

Albion · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Sorry, I meant a profession of faith at a particular moment in time.

I think this is where we differ. At least every Protestant denomination I belonged to considered this of utmost importance, while in Orthodoxy it is the staying on the path I would say that is emphasized.

I hope I have not mischaracterized anything. (I think I'll edit that and try to make it less confused - thanks for pointing it out)

Well, I was trying to reflect the historically Western way of looking at the same sacraments, and doing so as an Anglican myself. I wasn't intending to get into that "Make a decision for Christ" perspective or of being born again by such as that, which is important with Baptists and some other Protestants.

~Anastasia~ · Jan 22, 2016

Albion said:
Well, I was trying to reflect the historically Western way of looking at the same sacraments, and doing so as an Anglican myself. I wasn't intending to get into that "Make a decision for Christ" perspective or of being born again by such as that, which is important with Baptists and some other Protestants.

I see ... I looked at the words you used, and you spoke of reaffirming vows after a course of instruction. So in a sense it is a decision, but a more reasoned and - would you say kind of contractual? - arrangement, where evangelicals of some kinds tend to focus more on the experiential side? Is that the distinction you're looking to make?

That is probably closer to what the Orthodox would say as well - at least as far as instruction is needed, and the decision is made to continue. We don't tend to point to a "moment of salvation" at any rate.

Albion · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
I see ... I looked at the words you used, and you spoke of reaffirming vows after a course of instruction. So in a sense it is a decision, but a more reasoned and - would you say kind of contractual? - arrangement, where evangelicals of some kinds tend to focus more on the experiential side? Is that the distinction you're looking to make?

I don't think so. In the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican churches, Confirmation is simply seen as a reaffirmation of one's Baptismal vows--in addition to matters of grace, forgiveness of sins, etc. Your church doesn't see Christmation that way.

~Anastasia~ · Jan 22, 2016

Albion said:
I don't think so. In the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican churches, Confirmation is simply seen as a reaffirmation of one's Baptismal vows--in addition to matters of grace, forgiveness of sins, etc. Your church doesn't see Christmation that way.

Thank you.

MKJ · Jan 22, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Thank you for the reply.

And your statement regarding Orthodoxy is true, but that is simply a case of accepting a former baptism, over which there can be controversy in some jurisdictions.

I was actually glad not to be able to provide details on my baptism after going down many rabbit trails. I am told I am only the third adult to be baptized in my parish in the memory of the parishioners though.

Generally our concern for baptism is "one baptism for the remission of sins." I'm told a possible re-baptism is usually done as a conditional baptism, though mine was not.

But other than already-baptized adults being received without re-baptizing, I don't think it's possible to separate the sacraments in the Orthodox Church? And receiving already-baptized can't really be seen as a rule for understanding, since they had no possibility of being Chrismated. Not only that, but for adults received through Chrismation, the sacrament is considered to fulfill any possible deficiency in the person's previous baptism.

The normal process in the Orthodox Church today is to have Baptism, Chrismation, and reception of the Eucharist all within the same sacramental ceremony.

Thank you again for the reply.

Well, here is the thing - if it isn't actually possible to separate them, then it couldn't be done at all. They would two parts of a single sacrament. The question of accepting the validity of a baptism isn't really relevant, other than the fact that it can be done shows that it is a separate sacrament.

What is normative practice is different than what is possible. What is normative can be varied under the right circumstances if it is possible to do so. If it is not possible, it can't be varied, it's intrinsic.

Consider, for example, an emergency baptism, this is certainly not something that would be prevented because chrismation was not possible at that moment.

Or, if you want to take a historic example, it would never have been possible for the western church to baptize and wait for the bishop to confirm later.

Pedo-Communion

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

Contributor

Facilitator

Contributor

† Handmaid of God †

† Handmaid of God †

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Facilitator

† Handmaid of God †

Facilitator

† Handmaid of God †

Facilitator

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

† Handmaid of God †

Facilitator

† Handmaid of God †

Facilitator

† Handmaid of God †

Contributor

Similar threads