Chrismation

[Polycarp1]

I am curious about something.

In the Eastern Orthodox churches, the sealing of the baptized person as Christ's own by signing his/her forehead with the cross using holy chrism is an integral element of the baptismal rite, deemed equivalent to confirmation and always done at the time of and immediately following baptism,even with newborns. To the best of my knowledge the same custom is followed in the Eastern Rite Catholic churches.

Apparently chrismation is done as a part of confirmation in Roman Rite Catholic churches, at an 'age of reason' (varying from pre-teens to mid-teens between parishes and dioceses for children raised in the church).

The 1928 BCP's rubrics called for the signing at the time of baptism but didn't specify the use of chrism, and I have a very strong hunch it was used or not according to the local parish's "Low" or "High" tendencies. Only with the 1979 book is it specifically called for by rubric. Confirmation is specifically by the laying on of hands by the bishop, without the use of chrism or signing (which has of course already been done, at baptism).

In this, ECUSA has aligned itself squarely with the Orthodox rather than Roman Catholicism (meaning, in this instance, Latin-rite observance). However, we do not regard this as a distinct sacrament nor as equivalent to confirmation, as the Orthodox do.

I am very curious as to both what the rubrics/canons and the normal customs are in other Anglican national churches, such as ACC, CofE, Australia, etc., as well as what the continuing and related Anglican churches do in this regard. And also, of coruse, what the theological stance regarding the custom is.

 

[Wildcat48]

In the TEC, we align ourselves with the Orthodox in practice, but not necessarily the same in theology (as far as I understand it). From what I've been told, in the Episcopal Church, it is a sacramental rite that "completes" baptism.

 

[PaladinValer]

It doesn't complete Baptism, Wildcat48. Rather, it is more like a mature affirmation.

If anything, the next step if we were to truly fully revive the ancient practice, we'd call it the "Sacrament of Holy Baptism and Chrismation," as truly Chrismation is a part of the initiatory rite.

That doesn't mean that Holy Confirmation as it is today must disappear. There is much to be said about a mature declaration of faith; one that is inspired by the Holy Spirit and witnessed by the successors of the Apostles. I suggest it be renamed "Holy Reaffirmation" instead of Confirmation.

 

[Wildcat48]

I don't think we disagree PaladinValer. I put "complete" in quotations for a reason.

And I must ask, how is it a "mature affirmation" if it's applied to an infant? Confirmation appears to me to be that "mature affirmation". I do agree, however that chrismation is part of the initiatory rite. It's integral in the baptismal service its self. That's what I was saying, hence the use of "quotations" around complete. Chalk this up to my poor word choice/phrasing.

 

[ebia]

Plenty of good Anglican and Catholic theologians will admit that Confirmation is a sacrament in search of a theology.

It's more an accident of history than the result of coherent thinking. Pastorally it should work but more often than not doesn't.

How does the joke go? A Church of England vicar, a Presbyterian elder and a Methodist minister are discussing how to get rid of the pigeons lodged in the steeples of each of their churches. The elder described how he has tried scaring them away, but they keep coming back. The minster described tried putting up wire to keep them off, but they found ways around it. Then the vicar says "Oh, I got rid of them, no trouble at all. I just got the bishop to confirm them and I've never seen them since"

 

[Polycarp1]

I'm aware of the "Confirmation is the mature reaffirmation of vows made at baptism in the infant's name" school of thought. Discussion of the theology of confirmation might be iworthwhile, BTW.

But my focus was on chrismation, and my observation was:

• Latin-rite Catholics chrismate at confirmation.
• Orthodox and Eastern-rite Catholics chrismate at baptism, and regard it as equivalent to confirmation.
• Episcopalians (do all Anglicans?) chrismate at baptism, but then confirm by laying on of hands, and don't consider chrismation as a distinct sacrament.

 

[ebia]

I'm aware of the "Confirmation is the mature reaffirmation of vows made at baptism in the infant's name" school of thought. Discussion of the theology of confirmation might be iworthwhile, BTW.


But my focus was on chrismation, and my observation was:

• Latin-rite Catholics chrismate at confirmation.
• Orthodox and Eastern-rite Catholics chrismate at baptism, and regard it as equivalent to confirmation.
• Episcopalians (do all Anglicans?) chrismate at baptism, but then confirm by laying on of hands, and don't consider chrismation as a distinct sacrament.

I would suggest that not all Anglicans chrismate at all.

 

[Wildcat48]

I'm aware of the "Confirmation is the mature reaffirmation of vows made at baptism in the infant's name" school of thought. Discussion of the theology of confirmation might be iworthwhile, BTW.


But my focus was on chrismation, and my observation was:

• Latin-rite Catholics chrismate at confirmation.
• Orthodox and Eastern-rite Catholics chrismate at baptism, and regard it as equivalent to confirmation.
• Episcopalians (do all Anglicans?) chrismate at baptism, but then confirm by laying on of hands, and don't consider chrismation as a distinct sacrament.

Hence my understanding of it as a sacramental rite. We would have to ask a Catholic whether they have the same understanding of it in the context of the sacrament of confirmation...

 

[pmcleanj]

...Episcopalians (do all Anglicans?) chrismate at baptism...

Recognizing that the breadth of Anglican practice means that any statement with the word "all" in it is bound to be false, I think "all" Anglicans sign catechumens and infants with the sign of the cross when they are baptized.

MOST, but not all, of the Canadian priests I know use Chrism for signing a catechumen or infant, regardless of whether they are high-church or (as in St Stephen's) VERY low; and regardless of whether they are signing with the sign of the cross "in token that ye may not be afraid to confess the faith of Christ Crucified" as per the Prayer-Book Society parishes, or to "mark you as Christ's own forever" as per the Book-of-Alternative-Services parishes.

But common as Chrismation is, no priests I have met argue that its absence invalidates the baptism, and none argue that Chrismation obviates Confirmation.

 

[MKJ]

As far as the Catholic practise goes, it isn't actually concidered a sacrament of maturity from a theological perspective, though that is how it works in practice. But even Latin Rite Catholics can Confirm an infant if it is deemed advantageous, for example if the infant is in danger of death.

But I think the difference in practice comes from a greater emphasis on the individual will as being tied to understanding, and the willing participation of the individual in the sacraments, which has been the view of the Western Church.

Personally, I tend to think the Anglican Church has really neglected to develop a coherent theology in relation to Confirmation. They seem to align themselves with a mish-mash of approaches, without really considering what those approaches mean. It's half western and half eastern, but doesn't really make much sense from either perspective.

 

[ebia]

As far as the Catholic practise goes, it isn't actually concidered a sacrament of maturity from a theological perspective, though that is how it works in practice. But even Latin Rite Catholics can Confirm an infant if it is deemed advantageous, for example if the infant is in danger of death.

But I think the difference in practice comes from a greater emphasis on the individual will as being tied to understanding, and the willing participation of the individual in the sacraments, which has been the view of the Western Church.

Mostly the different western practice seems to have come about through accidents of history without any theory behind it.

Personally, I tend to think the Anglican Church has really neglected to develop a coherent theology in relation to Confirmation. They seem to align themselves with a mish-mash of approaches, without really considering what those approaches mean. It's half western and half eastern, but doesn't really make much sense from either perspective.

Having had to study this a bit in a Catholic context last year it seems that there isn't much coherent theology behind the Catholic practice either, so its not really surprising that we don't have that either. The only one that is coherent is the eastern practice; western practice is beyond fixing up because it was never based on theology in the first place, but historical accidents of practicality.