Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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?
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?
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, 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 also, Albion.Yes.
Thanks for your explanation! It is good to learn the various perspectives of our respective traditions.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.
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.
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.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.
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. - editedCertainly 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.
Right.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).
"One-time?" Baptism, Communion, Confirmation. These are more like steps in a journey, I'd say.But no, they are not linked as a one-time dependent event.
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.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!)
"One-time?" Baptism, Communion, Confirmation. These are more like steps in a journey, I'd say.
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.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.
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.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?
Thank you.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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?