OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 10:08:55 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Holy Spirit and Baptism  (Read 11187 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« on: May 31, 2010, 01:01:28 AM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2010, 06:37:47 AM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?

Dear Chris,

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

There is a logic to this teaching of theirs but I rejoice that God is not constrained by human logic.

Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2010, 08:13:12 AM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

I am just curious, why you ask?

M.
Logged

GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2010, 08:30:32 AM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?

Dear Chris,

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

There is a logic to this teaching of theirs but I rejoice that God is not constrained by human logic.



Father, could you offer a link or book quotation where Pope Shenouda or Mar Bishoy have said this?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2010, 08:44:15 AM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'


Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: <Insert your favourite patriotic attribute here> Orthodox
Posts: 5,975



« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2010, 08:50:39 AM »

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

Do they accept EO baptisms?
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2010, 08:59:55 AM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?

Dear Chris,

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

There is a logic to this teaching of theirs but I rejoice that God is not constrained by human logic.



Father, could you offer a link or book quotation where Pope Shenouda or Mar Bishoy have said this?

Re Mar Bishoy:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Bishoy_%28Nicola%29_of_Damietta#A_.22controversial.22_figure

Despite His Eminence's very active and commendable involvement in fruitful ecumenical dialogues with other Churches (leading the representation of the Coptic Orthodox Church in these dialogues), he is frequently criticized by many because of his rather strong words against non-Orthodox Churches (and the salvation of their faithful),(Arabic audio excerpt) and also against those whom he labels as heretics or heterodox over dogmatic matters he disagrees with.[3]

In March 2007, the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches in Egypt officially and publicly protested in the newsmedia against Metropolitan Bishoy's teachings that Catholics and Protestants will not be saved. The issue was widely covered in the mainstream secular newsmedia in Egypt, e.g., this Egyptian newspaper article and this second one from the same newspaper (both articles are in Arabic).
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2010, 09:16:54 AM »

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

Do they accept EO baptisms?

Yes.  However we have had problems with EO to OO weddings since in this country the Coptic Church will not marry a Greek Orthodox man to a Coptic woman.  The man was expected to convert to OO.   In this instance they decided to come to an EO church for their wedding.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2010, 09:34:22 AM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Are you saying that in Orthodoxy the Holy Spirit has no part in Baptism?

In other words are you saying that Baptism has no effect in terms of the healing of soul and body until the Chrismation is completed?

Baptism alone does not save?

And if it saves, how does it save without the power of the Holy Spirit?

And are you saying then that the teaching of Baptism by Water and Spirit is, in reality, Baptism-Chrismation by Water and the Spirit?

M.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 09:35:57 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2010, 09:46:48 AM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Are you saying that in Orthodoxy the Holy Spirit has no part in Baptism?

In other words are you saying that Baptism has no effect in terms of the healing of soul and body until the Chrismation is completed?

Baptism alone does not save?

And if it saves, how does it save without the power of the Holy Spirit?

And are you saying then that the teaching of Baptism by Water and Spirit is, in reality, Baptism-Chrismation by Water and the Spirit?

I know I'm dense, being an Hibernian and all, but how do these questions come out of what Saint Cyril taught?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2010, 09:54:08 AM »

Let me try again then.

What role does the Holy Spirit play in Orthodox Baptism, if any?

M.

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'



Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2010, 09:55:13 AM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Are you saying that in Orthodoxy the Holy Spirit has no part in Baptism?


Let us take a moment to consider what took place with the Saviour when he was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Immediately after His baptism the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

This is the way it occurs in the holy Church still. 

First our death and resurrection with Christ and our incorporation into  Him, then the coming of the Spirit into every last particle, nook and cranny, of the freshly cleansed chambers of our soul and body.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2010, 10:00:11 AM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Are you saying that in Orthodoxy the Holy Spirit has no part in Baptism?


Let us take a moment to consider what took place with the Saviour when he was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Immediately after His baptism the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

This is the way it occurs in the holy Church still. 

First our death and resurrection with Christ and our incorporation into  Him, then the coming of the Spirit into every last particle, nook and cranny, of the freshly cleansed chambers of our soul and body.

So there is no Baptism by Water and the Spirit in Orthodoxy.

There is a Baptism-Chrismation by Water and the Holy Spirit.

If there is only the possibility of a Baptism for some reason of emergency or other circumstance is the individual saved?....saved by economy?....or must one wait the the Chrismation occurs in order for the saving grace of Baptism by water and the spirit to "take" so to speak?

In other words is there no efficacious Baptism in Orthodoxy without Chrismation?

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2010, 10:02:17 AM »

Let me try again then.

What role does the Holy Spirit play in Orthodox Baptism, if any?


This question proceeds from a Roman Catholic and Protestant mindset which has for too long had a non-church understanding of "Confirmation."

For the Church the act of Baptism and Chrismation are virtually inseparable.

Death and resurrection in Christ followed at once by the anointing of the Spirit, just as at the River Jordan.

If an emergency lay baptism needs to occur, it must be COMPLETED as soon as possible with Chrismation.   Without the Chrismation it is INCOMPLETE.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2010, 10:04:45 AM »

Let me try again then.

What role does the Holy Spirit play in Orthodox Baptism, if any?


This question proceeds from a Roman Catholic and Protestant mindset which has for too long had a non-church understanding of "Confirmation."

For the Church the act of Baptism and Chrismation are virtually inseparable.

Death and resurrection in Christ followed at once by the anointing of the Spirit, just as at the River Jordan.

If an emergency lay baptism needs to occur, it must be COMPLETED as soon as possible with Chrismation.   Without the Chrismation it is INCOMPLETE.

So in Orthodoxy a Baptised person is not truly saved until they are Chrismated.

Why then bother with the anointing with the oil of gladness for the healing of soul and body?  Is that not a vestigial ritual then?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2010, 10:05:45 AM »

And so also could you answer Chris' question?

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2010, 10:10:49 AM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Are you saying that in Orthodoxy the Holy Spirit has no part in Baptism?


Let us take a moment to consider what took place with the Saviour when he was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Immediately after His baptism the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

This is the way it occurs in the holy Church still. 

First our death and resurrection with Christ and our incorporation into  Him, then the coming of the Spirit into every last particle, nook and cranny, of the freshly cleansed chambers of our soul and body.

So there is no Baptism by Water and the Spirit in Orthodoxy.

There is a Baptism-Chrismation by Water and the Holy Spirit.

If there is only the possibility of a Baptism for some reason of emergency or other circumstance is the individual saved?....saved by economy?....or must one wait the the Chrismation occurs in order for the saving grace of Baptism by water and the spirit to "take" so to speak?

In other words is there no efficacious Baptism in Orthodoxy without Chrismation?

M.

Let's play your game!

Do baptized Catholic children go to hell?

Without eating the body and blood of Christ they can "have no life in them" and they are not fit for the Kingdom of Heaven.  But you hold off the Eucharist, refuse to complete their baptism, and deny them what the Gospel says is the indispensable salvific grace of the Eucharist until they reach 7 or 8 years of age.
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2010, 10:12:29 AM »

elijahmaria, you'll find the answer in the Orthodox baptism service. Related answers can also be found in the Orthodox Vigil for Theophany.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2010, 10:15:33 AM »

And so also could you answer Chris' question?



I am disinclined to try.  He has rejected Eastern Orthodoxy which strongly implies that he has found answers from Orthodox priests of the East quite unsatisfactory, certainly not satisfactory nor convincing enough to keep him in the E Orthodox Church.  It would be more compelling for him if an Oriental priest were to answer his question.

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 10:21:23 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2010, 10:19:09 AM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Are you saying that in Orthodoxy the Holy Spirit has no part in Baptism?


Let us take a moment to consider what took place with the Saviour when he was baptized by John in the Jordan.

Immediately after His baptism the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.

This is the way it occurs in the holy Church still. 

First our death and resurrection with Christ and our incorporation into  Him, then the coming of the Spirit into every last particle, nook and cranny, of the freshly cleansed chambers of our soul and body.

So there is no Baptism by Water and the Spirit in Orthodoxy.

There is a Baptism-Chrismation by Water and the Holy Spirit.

If there is only the possibility of a Baptism for some reason of emergency or other circumstance is the individual saved?....saved by economy?....or must one wait the the Chrismation occurs in order for the saving grace of Baptism by water and the spirit to "take" so to speak?

In other words is there no efficacious Baptism in Orthodoxy without Chrismation?

M.

Let's play your game!

Do baptized Catholic children go to hell?

Without eating the body and blood of Christ they can "have no life in them" and they are not fit for the Kingdom of Heaven.  But you hold off the Eucharist, refuse to complete their baptism, and deny them what the Gospel says is the indispensable salvific grace of the Eucharist until they reach 7 or 8 years of age.

It is unfortunate you chose this tack. 

I am not playing a game.

I am asking about the role of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Baptism.  Can you tell me if there is any role for the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Baptism and if so, what is it?

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2010, 10:27:01 AM »

elijahmaria, you'll find the answer in the Orthodox baptism service. Related answers can also be found in the Orthodox Vigil for Theophany.

One of the things I find in the Orthodox baptism service, in fact, that prompted my question is an anointing with the Oil of Gladness for the healing of soul and body.

Now I do not confuse the anointing with the oil of gladness with the Chrismation. 

What I do is wonder how one can be healed in soul and body without the action of the Holy Spirit?

Father has said that healing does not take place until the baptizand is Chrismated.

So I again ask what is the role, if any, of the Holy Spirit in Baptism?

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2010, 10:29:00 AM »


I am asking about the role of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Baptism.  Can you tell me if there is any role for the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Baptism and if so, what is it?


I fear to make an answer since I fear that you will use it in some strange way.

But we can of course say that the Holy Spirit is present and working in ALL the Holy Mysteries whether it be Baptism, the Tonsuring of a monk or nun, the Blessing of Theophany Water, the change of the Bread and Wine....
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #22 on: May 31, 2010, 10:35:21 AM »

elijahmaria, you'll find the answer in the Orthodox baptism service. Related answers can also be found in the Orthodox Vigil for Theophany.

One of the things I find in the Orthodox baptism service, in fact, that prompted my question is an anointing with the Oil of Gladness for the healing of soul and body.

Now I do not confuse the anointing with the oil of gladness with the Chrismation. 

What I do is wonder how one can be healed in soul and body without the action of the Holy Spirit?

Father has said that healing does not take place until the baptizand is Chrismated.


Mary, I am going to be very blunt since you so frequently misrepresent what I say.  It is for this very reason that I hesitate to answer your question, as I have already said.  Now whether your misrepresentation comes from the dullness of my mind because I express myself so unclearly or whether it comes from your inability to understand me, I do not know.... but, <big letters coming!> Father has NOT said that healing does not take place until the baptizand is Chrismated.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2010, 10:45:56 AM »

elijahmaria, you'll find the answer in the Orthodox baptism service. Related answers can also be found in the Orthodox Vigil for Theophany.

One of the things I find in the Orthodox baptism service, in fact, that prompted my question is an anointing with the Oil of Gladness for the healing of soul and body.

Now I do not confuse the anointing with the oil of gladness with the Chrismation. 

What I do is wonder how one can be healed in soul and body without the action of the Holy Spirit?

Father has said that healing does not take place until the baptizand is Chrismated.


Mary, I am going to be very blunt since you so frequently misrepresent what I say.  It is for this very reason that I hesitate to answer your question, as I have already said.  Now whether your misrepresentation comes from the dullness of my mind because I express myself so unclearly or whether it comes from your inability to understand me, I do not know.... but, <big letters coming!> Father has NOT said that healing does not take place until the baptizand is Chrismated.

All right. 

So I could say that in Baptism there is a healing of soul and body by the power of the Holy Spirit?

M
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2010, 11:01:51 AM »


So I could say that in Baptism there is a healing of soul and body by the power of the Holy Spirit?

*You* could say that but I prefer to be cautious, not because what you say is not ostensibly true but because I have seen in other topics that seemingly correct statements may have an underlying questionable basis and may then lead on to unorthodox conclusions.   
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 6,674



« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2010, 11:12:18 AM »

So in Orthodoxy a Baptised person is not truly saved until they are Chrismated.

So in Orthodoxy a person is never fully saved because of the infinite depth of God.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2010, 11:35:47 AM »


So I could say that in Baptism there is a healing of soul and body by the power of the Holy Spirit?

*You* could say that but I prefer to be cautious,  

It is always good to be cautious, but what is a set of beliefs in faith that cannot bear to be interrogated?  I am not attacking; I am asking.

So if Baptism opens the soul by the power of the Holy Spirit and the grace of the Holy Spirit heals soul and body, then what is the action of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation that is different from that which occurs in Baptism?
Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 516



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2010, 11:47:58 AM »

Perhaps it is important to remember that a wide diversity of baptismal practices existed in the first centuries of the early Church.  I remember reading about all of this in some depth when I was in seminary (I had a keen interest in the theology and praxis of baptism), but I have forgotten most of what I knew.  A good introduction is Aidan Kavanagh's The Shape of Baptism, though no doubt even better introductions have been subsequently written.  

The most interesting baptismal rite (interesting by way of contrast) is found in the early East Syriac Churches.  The rite of initiation consisted of an anointing, water bath, concluding in Eucharist.  Apparently there was neither a post-baptismal anointing or laying on of hands.  And unlike the pre-baptismal anointing found, e.g., in other parts of the Church, the meaning of the Syriac anointing was most definitely pneumatic: the Spirit is poured out before the descent into the water-tomb.    The lesson, I guess, is: don't think of these matters in too linear a fashion.  
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2010, 11:54:31 AM »

Perhaps it is important to remember that a wide diversity of baptismal practices existed in the first centuries of the early Church.  I remember reading about all of this in some depth when I was in seminary (I had a keen interest in the theology and praxis of baptism), but I have forgotten most of what I knew.  A good introduction is Aidan Kavanagh's The Shape of Baptism, though no doubt even better introductions have been subsequently written.  

The most interesting baptismal rite (interesting by way of contrast) is found in the early East Syriac Churches.  The rite of initiation consisted of an anointing, water bath, concluding in Eucharist.  Apparently there was neither a post-baptismal anointing or laying on of hands.  And unlike the pre-baptismal anointing found, e.g., in other parts of the Church, the meaning of the Syriac anointing was most definitely pneumatic: the Spirit is poured out before the descent into the water-tomb.    The lesson, I guess, is: don't think of these matters in too linear a fashion.  

I think something like this is what has prompted Chris's initial inquiry.  

In St. Cyril's Protocatechesis that Father Ambrose mentioned a few notes ago, in the section on Chrismation, St. Cyril refers to..."the spiritual oil of gladness, the Holy Spirit"...so we see a direct connection with the Holy Spirit in Baptism, even in the linear form that occurred then and occurs now in the Byzantine rite and ritual.

The question seems to be, to me, not just the order of the service but the meaning of the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and then the further action of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, when Chrismation follows in an order of sequence and is distinct from Baptism.

How are the actions different?

M.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 12:00:12 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2010, 02:22:36 PM »

The question seems to be, to me, not just the order of the service but the meaning of the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and then the further action of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, when Chrismation follows in an order of sequence and is distinct from Baptism.

How are the actions different?

M.

My understanding is that Baptism is a cleansing, regeneration, and grafting into the Church, where Chrismation is a sealing and ordination to the royal priesthood of the believer. Both are done by the Holy Spirit.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2010, 02:31:15 PM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?
What I see in your question is the focus on the individual's participation in baptism and the Holy Spirit's working within the individual to actuate the grace of baptism.  I believe your focus is misplaced.  The sacramental mystery of baptism is first a sacrament of the Church, and it is the Holy Spirit working through the community of those gathered as the Church, the Body of Christ, that actuates the grace of baptism.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 02:32:37 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2010, 03:34:47 PM »

The question seems to be, to me, not just the order of the service but the meaning of the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and then the further action of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, when Chrismation follows in an order of sequence and is distinct from Baptism.

How are the actions different?

M.

My understanding is that Baptism is a cleansing, regeneration, and grafting into the Church, where Chrismation is a sealing and ordination to the royal priesthood of the believer. Both are done by the Holy Spirit.

I was going to use this passage below in another recently active thread on Baptism but I can use it here just as well.  It is one of my favorite catechetical texts concerning Holy Baptism because it is so clear, and so spiritually complete in its expression.  I was going to follow up a reflection that I've already posted on Baptism being a grafting of the soul into Christ, or as you say above, into the Body of Christ, the Church.

You can see the claim that is made for Baptism of water below and I think that fits well with what you've said above.  Baptism opens us to the Indwelling Trinity, or perhaps better said in this context, Baptism provides that simple singular form in the soul where God is now free to come and go.  Where before He could only operate externally to us, now He can dwell within us and give us ever increasing participation in his divine life.

St. Dionysius Areopagite, in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, [PG 3:485], calls the administration of the anointing with chrism τελετη or making perfect.  This I think comports well also with your understandings, in a more general sense.

And then he also calls Eucharist the deifying mystery and the central sacramental action of the Body of Christ.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

78.  We share in the image of God by virtue of the intellectual activity of our soul; for the body is, as it were, the soul's dwelling place.  Now as a result of Adam's fall, not only were the lineaments of the form imprinted on the soul befouled, but our body also became subject to corruption.  It was because of this that the holy Logos of God took flesh, and being God, He bestowed on us thorugh His own Baptism the water of salvation, so that we might be reborn.

We are reborn through water but the action of the holy and life creating Spirit, so that if we commit ourselves totally to God, we are immediately purified in soul and body by the Holy Spirit who now dwells in us and drives out sin. 

Since the form imprinted on the soul is single and simple, it is not possible as some have thought, for two contrary powers to be present in the soul simultaneously. For when through holy baptism, divine grace in its infinite love permeates the lineaments of God's image--thereby renewing in the soul the capacity for attain the divine likeness--what place is there for the devil?  For light has nothing in common with darkness. [Philokalia, vol 1., St. Diadochos of Photiki, p.280]
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2010, 04:59:34 PM »

The question seems to be, to me, not just the order of the service but the meaning of the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and then the further action of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, when Chrismation follows in an order of sequence and is distinct from Baptism.

How are the actions different?

M.

My understanding is that Baptism is a cleansing, regeneration, and grafting into the Church, where Chrismation is a sealing and ordination to the royal priesthood of the believer. Both are done by the Holy Spirit.

I was going to use this passage below in another recently active thread on Baptism but I can use it here just as well.  It is one of my favorite catechetical texts concerning Holy Baptism because it is so clear, and so spiritually complete in its expression.  I was going to follow up a reflection that I've already posted on Baptism being a grafting of the soul into Christ, or as you say above, into the Body of Christ, the Church.

You can see the claim that is made for Baptism of water below and I think that fits well with what you've said above.  Baptism opens us to the Indwelling Trinity, or perhaps better said in this context, Baptism provides that simple singular form in the soul where God is now free to come and go.  Where before He could only operate externally to us, now He can dwell within us and give us ever increasing participation in his divine life.

St. Dionysius Areopagite, in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, [PG 3:485], calls the administration of the anointing with chrism τελετη or making perfect.  This I think comports well also with your understandings, in a more general sense.

And then he also calls Eucharist the deifying mystery and the central sacramental action of the Body of Christ.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

78.  We share in the image of God by virtue of the intellectual activity of our soul; for the body is, as it were, the soul's dwelling place.  Now as a result of Adam's fall, not only were the lineaments of the form imprinted on the soul befouled, but our body also became subject to corruption.  It was because of this that the holy Logos of God took flesh, and being God, He bestowed on us thorugh His own Baptism the water of salvation, so that we might be reborn.

We are reborn through water but the action of the holy and life creating Spirit, so that if we commit ourselves totally to God, we are immediately purified in soul and body by the Holy Spirit who now dwells in us and drives out sin. 

Since the form imprinted on the soul is single and simple, it is not possible as some have thought, for two contrary powers to be present in the soul simultaneously. For when through holy baptism, divine grace in its infinite love permeates the lineaments of God's image--thereby renewing in the soul the capacity for attain the divine likeness--what place is there for the devil?  For light has nothing in common with darkness. [Philokalia, vol 1., St. Diadochos of Photiki, p.280]
elijahmaria,

Knowing that you are an Eastern Catholic who has expressed Eastern and Roman points of view contrary to the Orthodox faith of most on this Faith Issues board, your active presence on this thread is starting to trouble me.  I fear that you may be presenting to us your particularly EC/RC view of baptism as though it were a view taught by the Orthodox Church.  Therefore, I think you would do much better engaging our understanding of baptism on another thread in the Orthodox-Catholic section, so I ask you formally to do so.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2010, 05:16:50 PM »

The question seems to be, to me, not just the order of the service but the meaning of the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and then the further action of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, when Chrismation follows in an order of sequence and is distinct from Baptism.

How are the actions different?

M.

My understanding is that Baptism is a cleansing, regeneration, and grafting into the Church, where Chrismation is a sealing and ordination to the royal priesthood of the believer. Both are done by the Holy Spirit.

I was going to use this passage below in another recently active thread on Baptism but I can use it here just as well.  It is one of my favorite catechetical texts concerning Holy Baptism because it is so clear, and so spiritually complete in its expression.  I was going to follow up a reflection that I've already posted on Baptism being a grafting of the soul into Christ, or as you say above, into the Body of Christ, the Church.

You can see the claim that is made for Baptism of water below and I think that fits well with what you've said above.  Baptism opens us to the Indwelling Trinity, or perhaps better said in this context, Baptism provides that simple singular form in the soul where God is now free to come and go.  Where before He could only operate externally to us, now He can dwell within us and give us ever increasing participation in his divine life.

St. Dionysius Areopagite, in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, [PG 3:485], calls the administration of the anointing with chrism τελετη or making perfect.  This I think comports well also with your understandings, in a more general sense.

And then he also calls Eucharist the deifying mystery and the central sacramental action of the Body of Christ.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

78.  We share in the image of God by virtue of the intellectual activity of our soul; for the body is, as it were, the soul's dwelling place.  Now as a result of Adam's fall, not only were the lineaments of the form imprinted on the soul befouled, but our body also became subject to corruption.  It was because of this that the holy Logos of God took flesh, and being God, He bestowed on us thorugh His own Baptism the water of salvation, so that we might be reborn.

We are reborn through water but the action of the holy and life creating Spirit, so that if we commit ourselves totally to God, we are immediately purified in soul and body by the Holy Spirit who now dwells in us and drives out sin. 

Since the form imprinted on the soul is single and simple, it is not possible as some have thought, for two contrary powers to be present in the soul simultaneously. For when through holy baptism, divine grace in its infinite love permeates the lineaments of God's image--thereby renewing in the soul the capacity for attain the divine likeness--what place is there for the devil?  For light has nothing in common with darkness. [Philokalia, vol 1., St. Diadochos of Photiki, p.280]
elijahmaria,

Knowing that you are an Eastern Catholic who has expressed Eastern and Roman points of view contrary to the Orthodox faith of most on this Faith Issues board, your active presence on this thread is starting to trouble me.  I fear that you may be presenting to us your particularly EC/RC view of baptism as though it were a view taught by the Orthodox Church.  Therefore, I think you would do much better engaging our understanding of baptism on another thread in the Orthodox-Catholic section, so I ask you formally to do so.


Given the fact that every one of my sources is an eastern source, and given the fact that you have already been quite rude to me privately I would like to appeal this ruling.  To whom do I direct my inquiry?

And does this also hold true for Father Kimel or am I being singled out?

Mary
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2010, 05:39:31 PM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?

Dear Chris,

I regret that no Oriental Orthodox have as yet taken up your question and made an answer, so I shall offer one thing for contemplation...

Passages in Scripture show that Baptism needs to be completed by the conferring of the Holy Spirit.  For example, Acts 8...

"When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.  Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

But as I wrote earlier, I believe you should seek understanding on this question from an Oriental priest and I imagine that you are already under instruction as you make the journey into the Oriental Church.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2010, 06:39:46 PM »

The question seems to be, to me, not just the order of the service but the meaning of the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and then the further action of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, when Chrismation follows in an order of sequence and is distinct from Baptism.

How are the actions different?

M.

My understanding is that Baptism is a cleansing, regeneration, and grafting into the Church, where Chrismation is a sealing and ordination to the royal priesthood of the believer. Both are done by the Holy Spirit.

I was going to use this passage below in another recently active thread on Baptism but I can use it here just as well.  It is one of my favorite catechetical texts concerning Holy Baptism because it is so clear, and so spiritually complete in its expression.  I was going to follow up a reflection that I've already posted on Baptism being a grafting of the soul into Christ, or as you say above, into the Body of Christ, the Church.

You can see the claim that is made for Baptism of water below and I think that fits well with what you've said above.  Baptism opens us to the Indwelling Trinity, or perhaps better said in this context, Baptism provides that simple singular form in the soul where God is now free to come and go.  Where before He could only operate externally to us, now He can dwell within us and give us ever increasing participation in his divine life.

St. Dionysius Areopagite, in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, [PG 3:485], calls the administration of the anointing with chrism τελετη or making perfect.  This I think comports well also with your understandings, in a more general sense.

And then he also calls Eucharist the deifying mystery and the central sacramental action of the Body of Christ.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

78.  We share in the image of God by virtue of the intellectual activity of our soul; for the body is, as it were, the soul's dwelling place.  Now as a result of Adam's fall, not only were the lineaments of the form imprinted on the soul befouled, but our body also became subject to corruption.  It was because of this that the holy Logos of God took flesh, and being God, He bestowed on us thorugh His own Baptism the water of salvation, so that we might be reborn.

We are reborn through water but the action of the holy and life creating Spirit, so that if we commit ourselves totally to God, we are immediately purified in soul and body by the Holy Spirit who now dwells in us and drives out sin.  

Since the form imprinted on the soul is single and simple, it is not possible as some have thought, for two contrary powers to be present in the soul simultaneously. For when through holy baptism, divine grace in its infinite love permeates the lineaments of God's image--thereby renewing in the soul the capacity for attain the divine likeness--what place is there for the devil?  For light has nothing in common with darkness. [Philokalia, vol 1., St. Diadochos of Photiki, p.280]
elijahmaria,

Knowing that you are an Eastern Catholic who has expressed Eastern and Roman points of view contrary to the Orthodox faith of most on this Faith Issues board, your active presence on this thread is starting to trouble me.  I fear that you may be presenting to us your particularly EC/RC view of baptism as though it were a view taught by the Orthodox Church.  Therefore, I think you would do much better engaging our understanding of baptism on another thread in the Orthodox-Catholic section, so I ask you formally to do so.


Given the fact that every one of my sources is an eastern source, and given the fact that you have already been quite rude to me privately I would like to appeal this ruling.  To whom do I direct my inquiry?
Please send your appeal via private message to Fr. George.

And does this also hold true for Father Kimel or am I being singled out?

Mary
If you have any more questions about my decision, please send them to me or to Fr. George via private message.  I will not entertain questions of my decision here.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 07:11:35 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2010, 07:03:37 PM »

One thing I am wondering is if the operation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is satisfied simply by that of the officiating Priest/Bishop?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2010, 07:06:21 PM »

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

There is a logic to this teaching of theirs but I rejoice that God is not constrained by human logic.

That doesn't sound good. I generally don't like teachings which speculate particular groups or individuals who are going to inherit eternal damnation. It seems to take the Judgment out of God's hands and on top of that seems to limit the power of the petition of the Church on behalf of the deceased.

However, I don't know how connected such a thing is to the topic at hand...  Huh
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 07:06:48 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2010, 07:10:17 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

Hmmm. I've been taught in my history in EOy that the "Baptism of the Spirit" is actually Chrismation itself.

Go ahead and respond if you'd like, but I would also like to ask if any other EO or OO people would respond to this particular point.

I am just curious, why you ask?

Because my understanding is that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that was received on the Day of Pentecost and then later by laying on of hands or chrismation is the core state by which all the other Sacraments are generated. So I'm having a hard time understanding how Baptism could take into effect if the believer does not yet have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2010, 07:13:00 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Oh good, someone did comment on what I was wondering about.

So it would appear that I was right about chrismation being the proper rite through which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received.

Then it still leaves me wondering how the cleansing of Baptism is operated.

The only idea I've thought of is through the indwelling that is already in the Priest/Bishop.

Does that sound right, or do you have another explanation?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2010, 07:15:44 PM »

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

Do they accept EO baptisms?

The recognition of EO rites are quite various and I think kind of a mess within the Oriental churches right now. Some recognize none of them. Some recognize only Baptism. Some recognize Baptism and Chrismation (while requiring I suppose Confession before admittance). And then some recognize all in general and just receive EO to Communion without any other form of initiation.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2010, 07:17:52 PM »

In March 2007, the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches in Egypt officially and publicly protested in the newsmedia against Metropolitan Bishoy's teachings that Catholics and Protestants will not be saved.

If he meant this in the sense of "if they persist in their heresies without ever converting they will not be saved", I find it more agreeable. However, if he is saying this in the sense that "they will never be saved" as if they have no chance of being turned, I definitely think that that is problematic.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2010, 07:21:03 PM »

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

There is a logic to this teaching of theirs but I rejoice that God is not constrained by human logic.

That doesn't sound good. I generally don't like teachings which speculate particular groups or individuals who are going to inherit eternal damnation. It seems to take the Judgment out of God's hands and on top of that seems to limit the power of the petition of the Church on behalf of the deceased.

However, I don't know how connected such a thing is to the topic at hand...  Huh

The point I am making is that there are some unexpected surprises in Oriental baptismal theology as well as contrary teachings among the Oriental Churches.  This makes it presumptuous for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to answer your question. Discuss it with the Oriental priest who is catechising you.  And if you like to get back to us with his answers, I for one would be interested.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2010, 07:23:49 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Oh good, someone did comment on what I was wondering about.

So it would appear that I was right about chrismation being the proper rite through which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received.

Then it still leaves me wondering how the cleansing of Baptism is operated.

The only idea I've thought of is through the indwelling that is already in the Priest/Bishop.

Does that sound right, or do you have another explanation?
What of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is already in the Church?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2010, 07:23:56 PM »

Are you saying that in Orthodoxy the Holy Spirit has no part in Baptism?

He still possibly could through the indwelling of the officiating Priest/Bishop.

Baptism alone does not save?

Of course it doesn't. The strong distinction between Baptism and Chrismation/Confirmation is a Latin innovation and many of the early Fathers would appear to have recognized Chrismation/Confirmation as actually a part of the whole event called "Baptism", given that they did not independently mention any such Chrismation/Confirmation in their lists of the Sacraments, though they certainly performed that rite.

It should also be clear that someone could not be fully redeemed without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And are you saying then that the teaching of Baptism by Water and Spirit is, in reality, Baptism-Chrismation by Water and the Spirit?

I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying. That "Baptism by Water" is what we commonly call "Baptism" whereas "Baptism by the Spirit" is what we commonly call Chrismation/Confirmation. I'm pretty sure that this is common EO/OO teaching as I remember being taught it before this thread and IrishHermit seems to have confirmed that view.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2010, 07:25:39 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Oh good, someone did comment on what I was wondering about.

So it would appear that I was right about chrismation being the proper rite through which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received.

Then it still leaves me wondering how the cleansing of Baptism is operated.

The only idea I've thought of is through the indwelling that is already in the Priest/Bishop.

Does that sound right, or do you have another explanation?
What of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is already in the Church?

Hmmm? What role would the Church have in the Baptism/Chrismation of an initiate independent from that of the officiating Priest/Bishop?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 31, 2010, 07:31:23 PM »

If there is only the possibility of a Baptism for some reason of emergency or other circumstance is the individual saved?....saved by economy?....or must one wait the the Chrismation occurs in order for the saving grace of Baptism by water and the spirit to "take" so to speak?

Yes, I think this is a significant question. If redemption is only really received by Chrismation, I don't understand what could possibly be the point in performing a lay baptism in the first place.

Also, it makes me wonder another thing about Chrismation. I have seen some sources which indicate that the Old Believers who did not have Priests or Bishops or Communion none the less had Chrism and when they finally received a Bishop they initiated him through Chrismation. But how could they have Chrism or even use it if they neither have Bishop nor even Priest?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #47 on: May 31, 2010, 07:32:03 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Oh good, someone did comment on what I was wondering about.

So it would appear that I was right about chrismation being the proper rite through which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received.

Then it still leaves me wondering how the cleansing of Baptism is operated.

The only idea I've thought of is through the indwelling that is already in the Priest/Bishop.

Does that sound right, or do you have another explanation?
What of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is already in the Church?

Hmmm? What role would the Church have in the Baptism/Chrismation of an initiate independent from that of the officiating Priest/Bishop?
I think "independent" is the wrong word here.  The ministry of the priest/bishop IS the sacramental ministry of the Church.  There is no distinction.  I speak of the Spirit's indwelling of the Church rather than of the Spirit's indwelling of the priest/bishop because it is the Church that gives life to and defines the ministry of the priest/bishop.  Apart from the Church, one cannot even be a priest or a bishop, since one is a priest or a bishop only within the Church.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 07:32:48 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 31, 2010, 07:35:02 PM »

But we can of course say that the Holy Spirit is present and working in ALL the Holy Mysteries whether it be Baptism, the Tonsuring of a monk or nun, the Blessing of Theophany Water, the change of the Bread and Wine....

But all the others are different because they are being done to a person who already has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (the monastic tonsure) or they are being done to something with which the descent of the Holy Spirit is prayed for before any other effectual change (theophany waters and the bread and wine). Baptism is actually different, in that a certain change is asked for before the descent of the Holy Spirit is asked for.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2010, 07:36:14 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Oh good, someone did comment on what I was wondering about.

So it would appear that I was right about chrismation being the proper rite through which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received.

Then it still leaves me wondering how the cleansing of Baptism is operated.

The only idea I've thought of is through the indwelling that is already in the Priest/Bishop.

Does that sound right, or do you have another explanation?
What of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is already in the Church?

Hmmm? What role would the Church have in the Baptism/Chrismation of an initiate independent from that of the officiating Priest/Bishop?
I think "independent" is the wrong word here.  The ministry of the priest/bishop IS the sacramental ministry of the Church.  There is no distinction.  I speak of the Spirit's indwelling of the Church rather than of the Spirit's indwelling of the priest/bishop because it is the Church that gives life to and defines the ministry of the priest/bishop.  Apart from the Church, one cannot even be a priest or a bishop, since one is a priest or a bishop only within the Church.

Isn't the distinction you're making strictly semantic, then?

Isn't saying "through the indwelling that is already in the Priest" conveying essentially the same in meaning as "through the indwelling that is already in the Church"?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2010, 07:37:15 PM »


It should also be clear that someone could not be fully redeemed without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.


Your words have allowed me to bring up a question which has occupied my mind on a few occasions in life, and which I will now frame in Latin terminology so that Mary can participate and offer her views.

Let us assume that a man comes to baptism who has a wife and a mistress, or any other gravely sinful and permanent condition in life unacceptable to the teachings of Christ and which constitutes mortal sin.

This means he is in a state of mortal sin.

This means that his soul is quite unable to be the recipient of sanctifying grace.

Does this mean that his baptism is not efficacious?.... no grace is conferred, no Spirit is received, no regeneration in Christ - because the man is determined to continue with his adultery.

Should such a man be baptized again when and if he comes to repentance?

Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2010, 07:39:38 PM »

Mary, I am going to be very blunt since you so frequently misrepresent what I say.  It is for this very reason that I hesitate to answer your question, as I have already said.  Now whether your misrepresentation comes from the dullness of my mind because I express myself so unclearly or whether it comes from your inability to understand me, I do not know.... but, <big letters coming!> Father has NOT said that healing does not take place until the baptizand is Chrismated.

That post was seriously funny.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2010, 07:44:34 PM »

So in Orthodoxy a Baptised person is not truly saved until they are Chrismated.

So in Orthodoxy a person is never fully saved because of the infinite depth of God.

 Huh

I think you are confusing salvation and theosis.

Yes, salvation is part of theosis.

But I don't think it would be correct to say that the process of theosis that will continue after the general resurrection could still properly be called "salvation" or "redemption". Man will already have been returned to the whole state he is supposed to be in, and thus there is nothing any longer that he needs to be saved from, and no longer any lack in his own state that requires redemption.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2010, 07:47:41 PM »


So I could say that in Baptism there is a healing of soul and body by the power of the Holy Spirit?

*You* could say that but I prefer to be cautious,  

It is always good to be cautious, but what is a set of beliefs in faith that cannot bear to be interrogated?  I am not attacking; I am asking.

So if Baptism opens the soul by the power of the Holy Spirit and the grace of the Holy Spirit heals soul and body, then what is the action of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation that is different from that which occurs in Baptism?

Indwelling. Anything before Chrismation is the Holy Spirit working upon the believer. Only at Chrismation does the believer actually receive the Holy Spirit into him/herself as his/her internal annointing that fills him/her with the holiness he/she was previously lacking and completes his/her adoption by God.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 07:47:57 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2010, 07:51:33 PM »

And unlike the pre-baptismal anointing found, e.g., in other parts of the Church, the meaning of the Syriac anointing was most definitely pneumatic: the Spirit is poured out before the descent into the water-tomb.

Both approaches seem to have some logic to them. On one hand, I am grappling with the idea of the Holy Spirit operating remission of sins without being in the believer first. On the other hand, as IrishHermit mentioned, it does make sense to consider that the Holy Spirit could not enter into the believer until they are purified from sin. How significant these differences are, I don't know.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2010, 07:53:18 PM »

The question seems to be, to me, not just the order of the service but the meaning of the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and then the further action of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, when Chrismation follows in an order of sequence and is distinct from Baptism.

How are the actions different?

M.

My understanding is that Baptism is a cleansing, regeneration, and grafting into the Church, where Chrismation is a sealing and ordination to the royal priesthood of the believer. Both are done by the Holy Spirit.

How could someone be part of the Church when they do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and are not part of the royal priesthood? Aren't those aspects fundamental to the nature of the Church?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2010, 07:54:45 PM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?
What I see in your question is the focus on the individual's participation in baptism and the Holy Spirit's working within the individual to actuate the grace of baptism.  I believe your focus is misplaced.  The sacramental mystery of baptism is first a sacrament of the Church, and it is the Holy Spirit working through the community of those gathered as the Church, the Body of Christ, that actuates the grace of baptism.

So you're saying that is sufficient to consider that the Holy Spirit is in the Church and that through those who have already been Chrismated the Holy Spirit is working upon he/she who has not yet been Chrismated?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2010, 07:55:59 PM »

So in Orthodoxy a Baptised person is not truly saved until they are Chrismated.

So in Orthodoxy a person is never fully saved because of the infinite depth of God.

 Huh

I think you are confusing salvation and theosis.

Yes, salvation is part of theosis.

Can you explain (maybe in another thread) the problem which the Oriental Church has with theosis.   This matter is apparently at the base of the decades long feud between Pope Shenouda (and other Oriental hierarchs) and Fr Matta the Poor.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2010, 08:00:31 PM »


It should also be clear that someone could not be fully redeemed without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.


Your words have allowed me to bring up a question which has occupied my mind on a few occasions in life, and which I will now frame in Latin terminology so that Mary can participate and offer her views.

Let us assume that a man comes to baptism who has a wife and a mistress, or any other gravely sinful and permanent condition in life unacceptable to the teachings of Christ and which constitutes mortal sin.

This means he is in a state of mortal sin.

This means that his soul is quite unable to be the recipient of sanctifying grace.

Does this mean that his baptism is not efficacious?.... no grace is conferred, no Spirit is received, no regeneration in Christ - because the man is determined to continue with his adultery.

Should such a man be baptized again when and if he comes to repentance?



I have wondered the same thing. I think in a more general sense it touches on the question of how Receptionist (the early Reformed understanding whereby sanctifying grace essentially only exists for the faithful believer) the Church's Sacramental understanding is. The common Latin understanding is radically non-Receptionist ("ex opere operato"), however I don't know that either extreme necessarily holds true for the Eastern churches.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #59 on: May 31, 2010, 08:00:39 PM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?

You are seriously not getting an answer to your question.

There must be Oriental forums where you could make enquiries?

Or maybe place the query in the Oriental Orthodox section here where it will be noticed by other OOs.  Father Peter Farrington of the British Orthodox Coptic Church would certainly either have an answer or be able to find one for you.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 08:04:08 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 31, 2010, 08:15:14 PM »

So in Orthodoxy a Baptised person is not truly saved until they are Chrismated.

So in Orthodoxy a person is never fully saved because of the infinite depth of God.

 Huh

I think you are confusing salvation and theosis.

Yes, salvation is part of theosis.

Can you explain (maybe in another thread) the problem which the Oriental Church has with theosis.   This matter is apparently at the base of the decades long feud between Pope Shenouda (and other Oriental hierarchs) and Fr Matta the Poor.

This touches on a topic I was just about to post about in this thread, that was originally going to be in response to some of the things you have said:


"I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church)"

"I am disinclined to try.  He has rejected Eastern Orthodoxy which strongly implies that he has found answers from Orthodox priests of the East quite unsatisfactory, certainly not satisfactory nor convincing enough to keep him in the E Orthodox Church.  It would be more compelling for him if an Oriental priest were to answer his question."

"I regret that no Oriental Orthodox have as yet taken up your question and made an answer, so I shall offer one thing for contemplation..."

"But as I wrote earlier, I believe you should seek understanding on this question from an Oriental priest and I imagine that you are already under instruction as you make the journey into the Oriental Church."

"The point I am making is that there are some unexpected surprises in Oriental baptismal theology as well as contrary teachings among the Oriental Churches.  This makes it presumptuous for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to answer your question. Discuss it with the Oriental priest who is catechising you.  And if you like to get back to us with his answers, I for one would be interested."


I think you overestimate how staunchly attached to Oriental thinking I am. I have a strong respect for my Byzantine patrimony. The only issue where I have fundamentally rejected the teachings of your church is certain teachings from the Council of Chalcedon. Almost everything else that your church teaches I find orthodox and satisfying teaching (even when it uses different Christological terminology; through I prefer to use Oriental terminologies in the matter of Christology). There is a great deal in your tradition which is essentially not really found in the Oriental tradition that I uphold. For one thing, iconodulism to the extent that is found in the Byzantine tradition is not really found in the Oriental churches, except perhaps close in the African OO churches. On this issue, I am essentially almost if not as affirming of inconodulia as an EO. Another thing is the Palamite Theology. I am also very affirming of Palamite particulars, including the Essence-Energies distinction.

So, when you ask about theosis, I can't really answer your question. This is another topic in which I find myself siding with the teachings of your church. What I was expressing before was not hypothetical, but rather an expression of my own beliefs.

Finally, no I am in a finalized catechetical relationship with any one Priest/Bishop. You probably haven't seen it, but I've been having a fair amount of debate with other OO about the Agreed Statements. In the Agreed Statements it is said that both parties have "always loyally maintained the same authentic orthodox christological faith". The implication of this statement is that you did so even at the Council of Chalcedon, which does not leave room for your tradition having been heterodox in and with the council or even having had compromised pure orthodoxy with some heterodox at the council. That pure orthodoxy was compromised at Chalcedon I am convinced of, and I am also convinced that this is the Traditional OO teaching. So, I essentially see the Agreed Statements as likewise compromising that Tradition. Whether I can even be in Communion with those who accept, thus, is questionable. This is primarily why I have not pushed forward more in the inquiring process, as I feel I need to have that issue ironed out before I do, so I can even be sure where exactly to enter into my catechesis.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #61 on: May 31, 2010, 08:15:43 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Oh good, someone did comment on what I was wondering about.

So it would appear that I was right about chrismation being the proper rite through which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received.

Then it still leaves me wondering how the cleansing of Baptism is operated.

The only idea I've thought of is through the indwelling that is already in the Priest/Bishop.

Does that sound right, or do you have another explanation?
What of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is already in the Church?

Hmmm? What role would the Church have in the Baptism/Chrismation of an initiate independent from that of the officiating Priest/Bishop?
I think "independent" is the wrong word here.  The ministry of the priest/bishop IS the sacramental ministry of the Church.  There is no distinction.  I speak of the Spirit's indwelling of the Church rather than of the Spirit's indwelling of the priest/bishop because it is the Church that gives life to and defines the ministry of the priest/bishop.  Apart from the Church, one cannot even be a priest or a bishop, since one is a priest or a bishop only within the Church.

Isn't the distinction you're making strictly semantic, then?

Isn't saying "through the indwelling that is already in the Priest" conveying essentially the same in meaning as "through the indwelling that is already in the Church"?
No, it is not merely a semantic distinction.  To speak of the "indwelling that is already in the Priest" is to speak of the Holy Spirit's indwelling as a property of the priest independent of the Church, as if there is such a thing.  Maybe you and I mean the same thing, but I think the way you're wording it is probably not the best way in that it puts the emphasis on the priest in a way that could open the door for a Donatist interpretation of your words.

For instance, what if the priest is personally such a sinner that he has not the Holy Spirit dwelling within his person?  Does this invalidate those baptisms he performs?  Donatism would say yes, but we've already condemned this Donatist teaching for the heresy it is.  The better way to express the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and how this works the grace of baptism, then, is to focus on the Church, which possesses the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and is able to communicate this into the baptism through the ministry of the priest, regardless of the priest's personal worthiness of such grace.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2010, 08:28:22 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #62 on: May 31, 2010, 08:18:33 PM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?
What I see in your question is the focus on the individual's participation in baptism and the Holy Spirit's working within the individual to actuate the grace of baptism.  I believe your focus is misplaced.  The sacramental mystery of baptism is first a sacrament of the Church, and it is the Holy Spirit working through the community of those gathered as the Church, the Body of Christ, that actuates the grace of baptism.

So you're saying that is sufficient to consider that the Holy Spirit is in the Church and that through those who have already been Chrismated the Holy Spirit is working upon he/she who has not yet been Chrismated?
That's kinda what I'm saying.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #63 on: May 31, 2010, 08:18:56 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Oh good, someone did comment on what I was wondering about.

So it would appear that I was right about chrismation being the proper rite through which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received.

Then it still leaves me wondering how the cleansing of Baptism is operated.

The only idea I've thought of is through the indwelling that is already in the Priest/Bishop.

Does that sound right, or do you have another explanation?
What of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is already in the Church?

Hmmm? What role would the Church have in the Baptism/Chrismation of an initiate independent from that of the officiating Priest/Bishop?
I think "independent" is the wrong word here.  The ministry of the priest/bishop IS the sacramental ministry of the Church.  There is no distinction.  I speak of the Spirit's indwelling of the Church rather than of the Spirit's indwelling of the priest/bishop because it is the Church that gives life to and defines the ministry of the priest/bishop.  Apart from the Church, one cannot even be a priest or a bishop, since one is a priest or a bishop only within the Church.

Isn't the distinction you're making strictly semantic, then?

Isn't saying "through the indwelling that is already in the Priest" conveying essentially the same in meaning as "through the indwelling that is already in the Church"?
No, it is not merely a semantic distinction.  To speak of the "indwelling that is already in the Priest" is to speak of the Holy Spirit's indwelling as a property of the priest independent of the Church, as if there is such a thing.

How so? That is not how I intended it. I did not mean to suggest that the Priesthood or Episcopate of an individual was not dependent upon the Church. What I meant was that the Priest acts as the representative of the congregation in that rite and plays a role that the rest of the congregation cannot save through the mediation of the Priest.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 31, 2010, 08:19:28 PM »

Can someone explain to me how a person's participation in the Death and Resurrection of Christ could possibly occur if they have not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (afterwards at Chrismation)?
What I see in your question is the focus on the individual's participation in baptism and the Holy Spirit's working within the individual to actuate the grace of baptism.  I believe your focus is misplaced.  The sacramental mystery of baptism is first a sacrament of the Church, and it is the Holy Spirit working through the community of those gathered as the Church, the Body of Christ, that actuates the grace of baptism.

So you're saying that is sufficient to consider that the Holy Spirit is in the Church and that through those who have already been Chrismated the Holy Spirit is working upon he/she who has not yet been Chrismated?
That's kinda what I'm saying.

That sounds like a satisfying answer. Thanks.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #65 on: May 31, 2010, 08:22:21 PM »

I don't know if this is going to be helpful, but all this seeking to define the "moment" within the baptismal rite at which the Holy Spirit enters the person being baptised is akin to the attempt to define at which point in the Divine Liturgy does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. My understanding is that both events are not momentary or instantaneous, but a continuum. Attempts to define the exact "moment" are essentially futile, and contrary to the mysterious essence of the sacraments.

What we do know is that it happens. Apart from that, only God truly knows.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #66 on: May 31, 2010, 08:25:03 PM »

So you're saying that is sufficient to consider that the Holy Spirit is in the Church and that through those who have already been Chrismated the Holy Spirit is working upon he/she who has not yet been Chrismated?

If, as some of the Fathers say (St Gregory Palamas and John Damascene spring to mind) all graces come to us through Mary the Mother of God, then presumably it is she who is active and mediating grace to the person being baptized and chrismated?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #67 on: May 31, 2010, 08:29:27 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Oh good, someone did comment on what I was wondering about.

So it would appear that I was right about chrismation being the proper rite through which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received.

Then it still leaves me wondering how the cleansing of Baptism is operated.

The only idea I've thought of is through the indwelling that is already in the Priest/Bishop.

Does that sound right, or do you have another explanation?
What of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is already in the Church?

Hmmm? What role would the Church have in the Baptism/Chrismation of an initiate independent from that of the officiating Priest/Bishop?
I think "independent" is the wrong word here.  The ministry of the priest/bishop IS the sacramental ministry of the Church.  There is no distinction.  I speak of the Spirit's indwelling of the Church rather than of the Spirit's indwelling of the priest/bishop because it is the Church that gives life to and defines the ministry of the priest/bishop.  Apart from the Church, one cannot even be a priest or a bishop, since one is a priest or a bishop only within the Church.

Isn't the distinction you're making strictly semantic, then?

Isn't saying "through the indwelling that is already in the Priest" conveying essentially the same in meaning as "through the indwelling that is already in the Church"?
No, it is not merely a semantic distinction.  To speak of the "indwelling that is already in the Priest" is to speak of the Holy Spirit's indwelling as a property of the priest independent of the Church, as if there is such a thing.

How so? That is not how I intended it. I did not mean to suggest that the Priesthood or Episcopate of an individual was not dependent upon the Church. What I meant was that the Priest acts as the representative of the congregation in that rite and plays a role that the rest of the congregation cannot save through the mediation of the Priest.
When you explain yourself that way, I can actually agree with you.  Thank you for clarifying what you mean. Wink
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 31, 2010, 08:33:19 PM »

I don't know if this is going to be helpful, but all this seeking to define the "moment" within the baptismal rite at which the Holy Spirit enters the person being baptised is akin to the attempt to define at which point in the Divine Liturgy does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. My understanding is that both events are not momentary or instantaneous, but a continuum. Attempts to define the exact "moment" are essentially futile, and contrary to the mysterious essence of the sacraments.

What we do know is that it happens. Apart from that, only God truly knows.

One can still think of it in terms of time frame, which I do hear Easterners speak of, while avoiding specifying the exact moment.

For instance, I often hear that the time frame for when the consecration could happen could be anywhere from the Prosthesis all the way until the Epiclesis. Anywhere in there is of course sufficient, as all of these points are before when the faithful receive.

However, Baptism seems a little more complicated. If the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received at Chrismation, then Baptism occurs without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit being in the one who is being Baptized. The time frame for when the indwelling could be received thus overlaps the beginning of the ritual sanctification, and as such it is more problematic and complicated than with the Eucharist where the time frame does not overlap the point of the reception of sanctification by the faithful.

Does that make sense?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 31, 2010, 08:35:01 PM »

So you're saying that is sufficient to consider that the Holy Spirit is in the Church and that through those who have already been Chrismated the Holy Spirit is working upon he/she who has not yet been Chrismated?

If, as some of the Fathers say (St Gregory Palamas and John Damascene spring to mind) all graces come to us through Mary the Mother of God, then presumably it is she who is active and mediating grace to the person being baptized and chrismated?

LOL

Are they not primarily referring to sanctifying grace coming to us through her because Jesus was the first in whom sanctifying grace was found and He passed through her as a vessel?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #70 on: May 31, 2010, 08:35:29 PM »

In the Orthodox baptismal liturgy the Holy Spirit is given in the Baptism of water and Spirit [note the anointing for the healing of soul and body before immersion] and Confirmed during Chrismation when the person is sealed in the Holy Spirit.   That is how the person may die and rise again with Christ in Baptism.

It is mistaken to conceive of the Oil of Gladness as being the conferral of the Holy Spirit as if there are two receptions of the Holy Spirit, one prior to Baotism and one after.  You turn the right order of things upside down.  Baptism into Christ must proceed the coming of the Spirit into the newly washed temple of the soul.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, gives the correct teaching about this anointing prior to Baptism:

3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ.  For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree,and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.  The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.  For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one.
4.  After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism...'




Oh good, someone did comment on what I was wondering about.

So it would appear that I was right about chrismation being the proper rite through which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is received.

Then it still leaves me wondering how the cleansing of Baptism is operated.

The only idea I've thought of is through the indwelling that is already in the Priest/Bishop.

Does that sound right, or do you have another explanation?
What of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that is already in the Church?

Hmmm? What role would the Church have in the Baptism/Chrismation of an initiate independent from that of the officiating Priest/Bishop?
I think "independent" is the wrong word here.  The ministry of the priest/bishop IS the sacramental ministry of the Church.  There is no distinction.  I speak of the Spirit's indwelling of the Church rather than of the Spirit's indwelling of the priest/bishop because it is the Church that gives life to and defines the ministry of the priest/bishop.  Apart from the Church, one cannot even be a priest or a bishop, since one is a priest or a bishop only within the Church.

Isn't the distinction you're making strictly semantic, then?

Isn't saying "through the indwelling that is already in the Priest" conveying essentially the same in meaning as "through the indwelling that is already in the Church"?
No, it is not merely a semantic distinction.  To speak of the "indwelling that is already in the Priest" is to speak of the Holy Spirit's indwelling as a property of the priest independent of the Church, as if there is such a thing.

How so? That is not how I intended it. I did not mean to suggest that the Priesthood or Episcopate of an individual was not dependent upon the Church. What I meant was that the Priest acts as the representative of the congregation in that rite and plays a role that the rest of the congregation cannot save through the mediation of the Priest.
When you explain yourself that way, I can actually agree with you.  Thank you for clarifying what you mean. Wink

Sure!  Smiley
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #71 on: May 31, 2010, 08:51:32 PM »


[For instance, I often hear that the time frame for when the consecration could happen could be anywhere from the Prosthesis all the way until the Epiclesis. Anywhere in there is of course sufficient, as all of these points are before when the faithful receive.


But be aware that:

"According to Orthodox theology, the act of consecration is not complete until the end of the Epiclesis, and worship of the Holy Gifts before this point is condemned by the Orthodox Church as ‘artolatry’ (bread worship)."

Bp Kallistos Ware
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/__P1J.HTM
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 01, 2010, 12:02:35 AM »


It should also be clear that someone could not be fully redeemed without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.


Your words have allowed me to bring up a question which has occupied my mind on a few occasions in life, and which I will now frame in Latin terminology so that Mary can participate and offer her views.

Let us assume that a man comes to baptism who has a wife and a mistress, or any other gravely sinful and permanent condition in life unacceptable to the teachings of Christ and which constitutes mortal sin.

This means he is in a state of mortal sin.

This means that his soul is quite unable to be the recipient of sanctifying grace.

Does this mean that his baptism is not efficacious?.... no grace is conferred, no Spirit is received, no regeneration in Christ - because the man is determined to continue with his adultery.

Should such a man be baptized again when and if he comes to repentance?



I have no Latin views in this discussion area.  I left them at the door.  Could you please comment on the section that I quoted from the Philokalia?

I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

Mary
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #73 on: June 01, 2010, 12:28:03 AM »


[For instance, I often hear that the time frame for when the consecration could happen could be anywhere from the Prosthesis all the way until the Epiclesis. Anywhere in there is of course sufficient, as all of these points are before when the faithful receive.


But be aware that:

"According to Orthodox theology, the act of consecration is not complete until the end of the Epiclesis, and worship of the Holy Gifts before this point is condemned by the Orthodox Church as ‘artolatry’ (bread worship)."

Bp Kallistos Ware
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/__P1J.HTM

I think this is mostly on the premise that we do not know when the consecration occurs and the epiclesis constitutes the point where we can be sure that it has happened by then, and thus to worship the Gifts before then is to risk artolatry.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #74 on: June 01, 2010, 03:24:22 AM »


  Could you please comment on the section that I quoted from the Philokalia?


Yes.  As someone has commented the Holy Fathers see Baptism and Chrismation as completrely intertwined.  And so it is today even, in the Service of Baptism.

Pick up the Service and read it.  Baptism and Chrismation comprise one Service.  Indeed, reading the Service you have the impression that Chrismation is embedded within the Baptismal Service.

Chrismation occurs 30 seconds after the immersion in the font -following the pattern of Christ's Baptism and the immediate descent of the Spirit. 

It is slotted in so that it precedes the reading of the Baptismal Epistle and Gospel, and from then on the Prayers make equal mention of Baptism and Chrismation.

So there is 30 second delay between regeneration in the waters of Baptism and the anointing with the Spirit.  They form one action and this is why Saint Diadochos speaks of them as a unified happening.

I think that the Western separation of Baptism and Confirmation -with a 10 or 12 year gap between them-  has done a great disservice and has warped the understanding of the inseparability of these two great Mysteries in the minds of the Latin faithful.
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #75 on: June 01, 2010, 04:48:24 AM »

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

Do they accept EO baptisms?

The recognition of EO rites are quite various and I think kind of a mess within the Oriental churches right now. Some recognize none of them. Some recognize only Baptism. Some recognize Baptism and Chrismation (while requiring I suppose Confession before admittance). And then some recognize all in general and just receive EO to Communion without any other form of initiation.

Which ones do and which ones don't, etc.?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,835


"My god is greater."


« Reply #76 on: June 01, 2010, 08:26:07 AM »

Let me try again then.

What role does the Holy Spirit play in Orthodox Baptism, if any?


This question proceeds from a Roman Catholic and Protestant mindset which has for too long had a non-church understanding of "Confirmation."

For the Church the act of Baptism and Chrismation are virtually inseparable.

Death and resurrection in Christ followed at once by the anointing of the Spirit, just as at the River Jordan.

If an emergency lay baptism needs to occur, it must be COMPLETED as soon as possible with Chrismation.   Without the Chrismation it is INCOMPLETE.

So in Orthodoxy a Baptised person is not truly saved until they are Chrismated.

Why then bother with the anointing with the oil of gladness for the healing of soul and body?  Is that not a vestigial ritual then?

Read Acts 8:14-17. It states that the disciples at Samaria had been baptized, but the the Apostles prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." This was accomplished by the Apostles' laying on of hands; as the Church grew, the mystery was performed with chrism that had been blessed by the bishops.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 01, 2010, 08:52:36 AM »


  Could you please comment on the section that I quoted from the Philokalia?


Yes.  As someone has commented the Holy Fathers see Baptism and Chrismation as completrely intertwined.  And so it is today even, in the Service of Baptism.

Pick up the Service and read it.  Baptism and Chrismation comprise one Service.  Indeed, reading the Service you have the impression that Chrismation is embedded within the Baptismal Service.

Chrismation occurs 30 seconds after the immersion in the font -following the pattern of Christ's Baptism and the immediate descent of the Spirit. 

It is slotted in so that it precedes the reading of the Baptismal Epistle and Gospel, and from then on the Prayers make equal mention of Baptism and Chrismation.

So there is 30 second delay between regeneration in the waters of Baptism and the anointing with the Spirit.  They form one action and this is why Saint Diadochos speaks of them as a unified happening.

I think that the Western separation of Baptism and Confirmation -with a 10 or 12 year gap between them-  has done a great disservice and has warped the understanding of the inseparability of these two great Mysteries in the minds of the Latin faithful.

One or two more question to clarify for me what I have seen here in this thread.

Does Baptism save or is it Baptism-Chrismation that saves?

Why are their two major anointings in the ancient service that have carried into the present?  Why is the Holy Spirit referred to as the "oil of gladness" by the fathers, and the first anointing prior to contemporary baptism is done with the oil of gladness?  Has something changed?

Why is there a catechesis for each mystery?...or   Why is there not a single catechesis for Baptism-Chrismation? 

Even today there are Orthodox catechetical works that speak of the Holy Spirit coming at Baptism and again in a different and strengthening way in Confirmation: I am thinking of some web pages for various parishes and U.S. Orthodox jurisdictions when I ask this?  I have texts here that I use to teach eastern Catholics that are Orthodox texts and they do the same thing.

It would be very helpful to me if you did not simply push-back against some external teachings and please deal with some of the internal inconsistencies in the presentation here that keep me from being entirely comfortable with all that you have said, or leads me to doubt the truths of what I hear from other Orthodox sources.

M.
Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #78 on: June 01, 2010, 09:11:43 AM »

I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

That's not exactly true, we just ask everyone to respect the purpose of each forum: Faith Issues is for discussion of Orthodoxy, Orthodox-Other Christian (with its Orthodox-Roman Catholic sub-forum) is for discussion & comparison of different Christian Faiths.  What we encourage is this: if you have points from your RC background that you think are germane to this discussion, start a new thread in the Orth-Cath forum to discuss this tangent, and provide a link (both in that thread, and in this one) to the parallel discussion.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #79 on: June 01, 2010, 09:26:38 AM »

I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

That's not exactly true, we just ask everyone to respect the purpose of each forum: Faith Issues is for discussion of Orthodoxy, Orthodox-Other Christian (with its Orthodox-Roman Catholic sub-forum) is for discussion & comparison of different Christian Faiths.  What we encourage is this: if you have points from your RC background that you think are germane to this discussion, start a new thread in the Orth-Cath forum to discuss this tangent, and provide a link (both in that thread, and in this one) to the parallel discussion.
So this is why she hasn't answered:
I am still hoping that Father Al Kimel or someone from the Orthodox community here will read the selections from Archbishop Hilarion on the ancestral sin and tell me what the Catholic Church teaches that is different from what is contained in the Archbishops little catechetical teaching....please.

Mary


Not until I get an answer.
Quote
The reason that you are bearing false witness is the fact that you took however long it took to cut and paste all of the texts you chose to use to put words in my mouth and ignored those texts which would truthfully clarify my position in my own words.

On the contrary. The posts I selected were those which were directly relevant to your assertion that the IC was a historic doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Many of your other posts concerned themselves with matters peripheral to this, such as the nature of baptism, which translations of the Psalter you preferred, and others.

Like the employment history of others:
"Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#Relevant_quotations_from_the_Fathers
The concept of the IC is completely meaningless to the Orthodox, except as an attempt for the Roman Church to correct its own error about original sin.

Perhaps we should regard IC as a misguided step in the right direction?

Perhaps you can tell me if the following is Orthodox teaching:

Perhaps you can explain something for me first:
Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.


Keep looking.  It's here.  And more than that you have me, right here, telling you that you've misapprehended my purpose and are bearing witness falsely against me.

What more do you need?

I still formally protest the false witness and the attitude that is tantamount to calling me a liar when I correct you.

Mary

I'm still waiting....
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

The reason I don't respond to you often is because you apparently don't need me in order to tell the others what I am thinking.

You do that very nicely all by yourself.  So carry on, your critique will eventually die of its own weight, for it has little to do with me, and certainly will not keep me from continuing to put forward my own ideas.

Mary

Quote
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

I have done the honest thing in posting your own words, from the public record of this forum, and the words of the sources and documents you have used in promoting the idea that the Orthodox Church once held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The additional commentary, outside the quote boxes, are neutral, dispassionate, and explanatory, not analytical or exegetical.


Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.  So as long as you skip that list and impute meaning to my words that I did not intend you are being grossly dishonest in your ongoing bullying here, and I formally protest.  Without that itemized list of what I intend, you use my own words as false witness against me.  History is full of precisely this kind of behavior.  I am happy to see that being Orthodox is no more of a guarantee of better behaviors than being Catholic.

M.

I'm still waiting.....

Bump

Bump

Bump? Now, now. I asked first:

Speaking of wrong:
Now can you answer the question?
No, but I'm curious as to why you ask, as I can't see the connection with the rest of the posts. I mean, you baldly ask me to identify myself rather than ask anything about what I've posted. As far as I can tell Northern Illinois (my sister did go there, btw, I almost did for accreditation) isn't accredited by the Vatican's magisterium.

Is this to provide the authority for my statements, much like we ask (e.g. LBK) for the authority of your statements which contradict what we know? Like publication information on liturgical texts which should be public rather than personal/private (hence the term "publish")?  I mean, we're not gnostics.  At least we aren't.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 09:27:07 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #80 on: June 01, 2010, 09:37:22 AM »

I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

That's not exactly true, we just ask everyone to respect the purpose of each forum: Faith Issues is for discussion of Orthodoxy, Orthodox-Other Christian (with its Orthodox-Roman Catholic sub-forum) is for discussion & comparison of different Christian Faiths.  What we encourage is this: if you have points from your RC background that you think are germane to this discussion, start a new thread in the Orth-Cath forum to discuss this tangent, and provide a link (both in that thread, and in this one) to the parallel discussion.

Can you understand and accept that I am not coming at this particular issue from any Latin viewpoint.

I am looking strictly at Orthodox and patristic sources and finding certain things that I think should be able to be answered.  Some Orthodox sources are coherent to me and I grasp what is being said in the Orthodox context.

There are things that are said here that do not cohere with some of those other sources so I am asking those questions from what I can see inside the tradition.

That is why I am asking to be permitted to keep it here and respond here.  I do not seek to make any comparisons at all in fact.  That would draw off my immediate concerns and questions, which I have listed above.  Do you see?

Mary

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #81 on: June 01, 2010, 09:39:28 AM »

I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

That's not exactly true, we just ask everyone to respect the purpose of each forum: Faith Issues is for discussion of Orthodoxy, Orthodox-Other Christian (with its Orthodox-Roman Catholic sub-forum) is for discussion & comparison of different Christian Faiths.  What we encourage is this: if you have points from your RC background that you think are germane to this discussion, start a new thread in the Orth-Cath forum to discuss this tangent, and provide a link (both in that thread, and in this one) to the parallel discussion.

Can you understand and accept that I am not coming at this particular issue from any Latin viewpoint.

I am looking strictly at Orthodox and patristic sources and finding certain things that I think should be able to be answered.  Some Orthodox sources are coherent to me and I grasp what is being said in the Orthodox context.

There are things that are said here that do not cohere with some of those other sources so I am asking those questions from what I can see inside the tradition.

That is why I am asking to be permitted to keep it here and respond here.  I do not seek to make any comparisons at all in fact.  That would draw off my immediate concerns and questions, which I have listed above.  Do you see?
An agenda, yes.

Baptism is the New Birth, Christmation the drawing of the first breath of the new creation in the new life in Christ, just as it happens in the first birth. St. Symeon the New Theologian IIRC deals with this.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 09:40:21 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 01, 2010, 09:51:15 AM »

I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

That's not exactly true, we just ask everyone to respect the purpose of each forum: Faith Issues is for discussion of Orthodoxy, Orthodox-Other Christian (with its Orthodox-Roman Catholic sub-forum) is for discussion & comparison of different Christian Faiths.  What we encourage is this: if you have points from your RC background that you think are germane to this discussion, start a new thread in the Orth-Cath forum to discuss this tangent, and provide a link (both in that thread, and in this one) to the parallel discussion.

Can you understand and accept that I am not coming at this particular issue from any Latin viewpoint.

I am looking strictly at Orthodox and patristic sources and finding certain things that I think should be able to be answered.  Some Orthodox sources are coherent to me and I grasp what is being said in the Orthodox context.

There are things that are said here that do not cohere with some of those other sources so I am asking those questions from what I can see inside the tradition.

That is why I am asking to be permitted to keep it here and respond here.  I do not seek to make any comparisons at all in fact.  That would draw off my immediate concerns and questions, which I have listed above.  Do you see?
An agenda, yes.

Baptism is the New Birth, Christmation the drawing of the first breath of the new creation in the new life in Christ, just as it happens in the first birth. St. Symeon the New Theologian IIRC deals with this.

That is not fair play in fact to simply accuse me of an agenda and then refuse to respond to my direct questions that are not based on an agenda but based upon certain inconsistencies I see in the explanations offered here.  I am not looking for metaphorical language at the moment.  I am aware of St. Symeon's teachings and they do not answer my questions listed above concerning current Orthodox teaching and language used to explain the metaphorical and mystical fathers.

Mary
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 09:53:27 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #83 on: June 01, 2010, 09:51:39 AM »

I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

That's not exactly true, we just ask everyone to respect the purpose of each forum: Faith Issues is for discussion of Orthodoxy, Orthodox-Other Christian (with its Orthodox-Roman Catholic sub-forum) is for discussion & comparison of different Christian Faiths.  What we encourage is this: if you have points from your RC background that you think are germane to this discussion, start a new thread in the Orth-Cath forum to discuss this tangent, and provide a link (both in that thread, and in this one) to the parallel discussion.

Can you understand and accept that I am not coming at this particular issue from any Latin viewpoint.  

If you are not, "coming at this particular issue from any Latin viewpoint," then you are also not, "under a gag order at the moment," at least not from the moderators of this forum.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #84 on: June 01, 2010, 09:52:34 AM »

I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

That's not exactly true, we just ask everyone to respect the purpose of each forum: Faith Issues is for discussion of Orthodoxy, Orthodox-Other Christian (with its Orthodox-Roman Catholic sub-forum) is for discussion & comparison of different Christian Faiths.  What we encourage is this: if you have points from your RC background that you think are germane to this discussion, start a new thread in the Orth-Cath forum to discuss this tangent, and provide a link (both in that thread, and in this one) to the parallel discussion.

Can you understand and accept that I am not coming at this particular issue from any Latin viewpoint.  

If you are not, "coming at this particular issue from any Latin viewpoint," then you are also not, "under a gag order at the moment," at least not from the moderators of this forum.

Thank you, Father.  That is most fair.

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 01, 2010, 12:26:14 PM »

Let me try again then.

What role does the Holy Spirit play in Orthodox Baptism, if any?


This question proceeds from a Roman Catholic and Protestant mindset which has for too long had a non-church understanding of "Confirmation."

For the Church the act of Baptism and Chrismation are virtually inseparable.

Death and resurrection in Christ followed at once by the anointing of the Spirit, just as at the River Jordan.

If an emergency lay baptism needs to occur, it must be COMPLETED as soon as possible with Chrismation.   Without the Chrismation it is INCOMPLETE.

So in Orthodoxy a Baptised person is not truly saved until they are Chrismated.

Why then bother with the anointing with the oil of gladness for the healing of soul and body?  Is that not a vestigial ritual then?

Read Acts 8:14-17. It states that the disciples at Samaria had been baptized, but the the Apostles prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." This was accomplished by the Apostles' laying on of hands; as the Church grew, the mystery was performed with chrism that had been blessed by the bishops.

Do you have access to a history of this development?  This is not asked in doubt but I don't know whether or not there is an historical account that compiles what we have of original documents that would illuminate the history of the addition of chrism to the ritual of conferring the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.  I can put it together in bits and pieces with what I have but that's all it is, bits and pieces.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #86 on: June 01, 2010, 12:30:32 PM »

I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

That's not exactly true, we just ask everyone to respect the purpose of each forum: Faith Issues is for discussion of Orthodoxy, Orthodox-Other Christian (with its Orthodox-Roman Catholic sub-forum) is for discussion & comparison of different Christian Faiths.  What we encourage is this: if you have points from your RC background that you think are germane to this discussion, start a new thread in the Orth-Cath forum to discuss this tangent, and provide a link (both in that thread, and in this one) to the parallel discussion.

Can you understand and accept that I am not coming at this particular issue from any Latin viewpoint.

I am looking strictly at Orthodox and patristic sources and finding certain things that I think should be able to be answered.  Some Orthodox sources are coherent to me and I grasp what is being said in the Orthodox context.

There are things that are said here that do not cohere with some of those other sources so I am asking those questions from what I can see inside the tradition.

That is why I am asking to be permitted to keep it here and respond here.  I do not seek to make any comparisons at all in fact.  That would draw off my immediate concerns and questions, which I have listed above.  Do you see?
An agenda, yes.

Baptism is the New Birth, Christmation the drawing of the first breath of the new creation in the new life in Christ, just as it happens in the first birth. St. Symeon the New Theologian IIRC deals with this.

That is not fair play in fact to simply accuse me of an agenda and then refuse to respond to my direct questions
Then remove that log:
I won't be able to respond because I am under a gag order at the moment, but I'd like to hear how you think that fits into this discussion.

That's not exactly true, we just ask everyone to respect the purpose of each forum: Faith Issues is for discussion of Orthodoxy, Orthodox-Other Christian (with its Orthodox-Roman Catholic sub-forum) is for discussion & comparison of different Christian Faiths.  What we encourage is this: if you have points from your RC background that you think are germane to this discussion, start a new thread in the Orth-Cath forum to discuss this tangent, and provide a link (both in that thread, and in this one) to the parallel discussion.
So this is why she hasn't answered:
I am still hoping that Father Al Kimel or someone from the Orthodox community here will read the selections from Archbishop Hilarion on the ancestral sin and tell me what the Catholic Church teaches that is different from what is contained in the Archbishops little catechetical teaching....please.

Mary


Not until I get an answer.
Quote
The reason that you are bearing false witness is the fact that you took however long it took to cut and paste all of the texts you chose to use to put words in my mouth and ignored those texts which would truthfully clarify my position in my own words.

On the contrary. The posts I selected were those which were directly relevant to your assertion that the IC was a historic doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Many of your other posts concerned themselves with matters peripheral to this, such as the nature of baptism, which translations of the Psalter you preferred, and others.

Like the employment history of others:
"Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#Relevant_quotations_from_the_Fathers
The concept of the IC is completely meaningless to the Orthodox, except as an attempt for the Roman Church to correct its own error about original sin.

Perhaps we should regard IC as a misguided step in the right direction?

Perhaps you can tell me if the following is Orthodox teaching:

Perhaps you can explain something for me first:
Quote
Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.


I see. A phantom list, like the phantom encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos, which Fr Kucharek quoted in his magnum opus? Unless this list of yours is on another thread.


Keep looking.  It's here.  And more than that you have me, right here, telling you that you've misapprehended my purpose and are bearing witness falsely against me.

What more do you need?

I still formally protest the false witness and the attitude that is tantamount to calling me a liar when I correct you.

Mary

I'm still waiting....
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

The reason I don't respond to you often is because you apparently don't need me in order to tell the others what I am thinking.

You do that very nicely all by yourself.  So carry on, your critique will eventually die of its own weight, for it has little to do with me, and certainly will not keep me from continuing to put forward my own ideas.

Mary

Quote
The honest thing would have been to find the note where I actually listed the points I was trying to make by doing all this rather than imposing your own ideas.

I have done the honest thing in posting your own words, from the public record of this forum, and the words of the sources and documents you have used in promoting the idea that the Orthodox Church once held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. The additional commentary, outside the quote boxes, are neutral, dispassionate, and explanatory, not analytical or exegetical.


Unless it has been removed by the moderators, there remains a list of what I intended to do in my part of this discussion.  So as long as you skip that list and impute meaning to my words that I did not intend you are being grossly dishonest in your ongoing bullying here, and I formally protest.  Without that itemized list of what I intend, you use my own words as false witness against me.  History is full of precisely this kind of behavior.  I am happy to see that being Orthodox is no more of a guarantee of better behaviors than being Catholic.

M.

I'm still waiting.....

Bump

Bump

Bump? Now, now. I asked first:

Speaking of wrong:
Now can you answer the question?
No, but I'm curious as to why you ask, as I can't see the connection with the rest of the posts. I mean, you baldly ask me to identify myself rather than ask anything about what I've posted. As far as I can tell Northern Illinois (my sister did go there, btw, I almost did for accreditation) isn't accredited by the Vatican's magisterium.

Is this to provide the authority for my statements, much like we ask (e.g. LBK) for the authority of your statements which contradict what we know? Like publication information on liturgical texts which should be public rather than personal/private (hence the term "publish")?  I mean, we're not gnostics.  At least we aren't.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #87 on: June 01, 2010, 01:13:12 PM »

^ Isa,

Please do not antagonize Mary by continuing to air your grievances about how she replied or failed to reply to your questioning on another thread on the Orthodox-Catholic board--THAT thread is the place for you to continue pressing Mary for answers.  What you've brought to this thread in your last two posts has nothing to do with the discussion here and can only derail this thread.  If you have any questions about my request, please send them to me in a PM.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 01:16:50 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,835


"My god is greater."


« Reply #88 on: June 01, 2010, 01:15:28 PM »

Isa, is that really necessary?

Let me try again then.

What role does the Holy Spirit play in Orthodox Baptism, if any?


This question proceeds from a Roman Catholic and Protestant mindset which has for too long had a non-church understanding of "Confirmation."

For the Church the act of Baptism and Chrismation are virtually inseparable.

Death and resurrection in Christ followed at once by the anointing of the Spirit, just as at the River Jordan.

If an emergency lay baptism needs to occur, it must be COMPLETED as soon as possible with Chrismation.   Without the Chrismation it is INCOMPLETE.

So in Orthodoxy a Baptised person is not truly saved until they are Chrismated.

Why then bother with the anointing with the oil of gladness for the healing of soul and body?  Is that not a vestigial ritual then?

Read Acts 8:14-17. It states that the disciples at Samaria had been baptized, but the the Apostles prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." This was accomplished by the Apostles' laying on of hands; as the Church grew, the mystery was performed with chrism that had been blessed by the bishops.

Do you have access to a history of this development?  This is not asked in doubt but I don't know whether or not there is an historical account that compiles what we have of original documents that would illuminate the history of the addition of chrism to the ritual of conferring the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.  I can put it together in bits and pieces with what I have but that's all it is, bits and pieces.

I don't have access to any primary documents, if that's what you mean. I learned this from Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy's The Law of God which says The first Apostles accomplished the Mystery of Chrismation through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17; 19:2-6). Then at the end of the first century, the Mystery of Chrismation came to be performed by anointment with holy oil, after the example of the Old Testament Church, as the Apostles themselves were not always able to perform the Mystery through the laying on of hands.
...
The first chrism was sanctified by the Apostles themselves and their successors, the bishops. Only bishops may consecrate this chrism. By anointing with the chrism sanctified by the bishops, priests are able to perform the Mystery of Chrismation.



The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Confirmation is also pretty informative. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 01, 2010, 02:13:57 PM »

Do you have access to a history of this development?  This is not asked in doubt but I don't know whether or not there is an historical account that compiles what we have of original documents that would illuminate the history of the addition of chrism to the ritual of conferring the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.  I can put it together in bits and pieces with what I have but that's all it is, bits and pieces.

I don't have access to any primary documents, if that's what you mean. I learned this from Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy's The Law of God which says The first Apostles accomplished the Mystery of Chrismation through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17; 19:2-6). Then at the end of the first century, the Mystery of Chrismation came to be performed by anointment with holy oil, after the example of the Old Testament Church, as the Apostles themselves were not always able to perform the Mystery through the laying on of hands.
...
The first chrism was sanctified by the Apostles themselves and their successors, the bishops. Only bishops may consecrate this chrism. By anointing with the chrism sanctified by the bishops, priests are able to perform the Mystery of Chrismation.


The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Confirmation is also pretty informative. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm

On no...I was not looking to have you access primary docs. at all.  That is not necessary.  I was looking for what you have here...an Orthodox generated estimation of the timing of the introduction of myron, which seems to me to be the beginning of looking at the two mysteries as something distinct from one another.   I have some historical references but they are Catholic sources and so I was asking for Orthodox sources.

Also, I am thinking now of an Antiochian site that I was looking at earlier this morning where Baptism is taught, in part, as the introduction of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of the soul, and Chrismation as the seal of the Holy Spirit where the action of Baptism is completed and perfected...if one does not look at perfecting as being a one time act in time....but as a strengthening of the initial grace of Baptism and the giving of the Holy Spirit indwelling, not just the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  

So it is clear that although they are intimately and intrinsically connected Baptism and Chrismation are catechised distinctly now, whereas in the desert fathers, particularly I am thinking of the Philokalia now, the discussions of baptism presume the healing of soul and body and illumination all in one breath.  There is no reference that I can find thus far to laying on of hands or anointing with myron.  So the distinguishing catechesis seems to have occurred over longer time.

I honestly did not keep the url because I was looking at so many and had not intended to discuss any of them in particular.  At any rate I don't think it is a false Orthodox view though I am open to correction.

I am also still interested in discussing the initial anointing with the oil of gladness in Baptism and the references in the desert fathers to the Holy Spirit, calling Him the "oil of gladness."  That would indicate a strong mystical and real presence of the Holy Spirit in the sacramental act of Baptism, for the healing of soul and body.

There were a couple of other things from that list I posted above that I was thinking to mention,  but my mind is distracted now by a related thought on the various catechetical homilies on mystagogy...so I'll just close this out here.

There is a Catholic liturgical historian who has analyzed the primary mystagogical texts of the first...what?...five centuries, and looks not only at the typological language used, but examines the extra-Scriptural language of realism introduced by SS. Cyril and John C. and also St. Ambrose of Milan.  He also looks at Theodore of Mopsuestia's mystagogical writings as well, though I am weakest in knowing them.

I was also wondering if there is such a compilation of texts done by an Orthodox author or authors that might be similar or treat the same ancient texts?

Mary
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 02:16:15 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #90 on: June 01, 2010, 02:28:44 PM »


I was also wondering if there is such a compilation of texts done by an Orthodox author or authors that might be similar or treat the same ancient texts?

Look at Patriarch Jeremiah, Mogila, the Symbolical Books, Dyobouniotes, Mesolora, Androutsos, Kritopoulos.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 01, 2010, 02:32:41 PM »


I was also wondering if there is such a compilation of texts done by an Orthodox author or authors that might be similar or treat the same ancient texts?

Look at Patriarch Jeremiah, Mogila, the Symbolical Books, Dyobouniotes, Mesolora, Androutsos, Kritopoulos.

There are times when I wish I was a church mouse...in a monastery!!...who could read!!...more than one language!! <sigh>

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 01, 2010, 03:54:13 PM »

Do you have access to a history of this development?  This is not asked in doubt but I don't know whether or not there is an historical account that compiles what we have of original documents that would illuminate the history of the addition of chrism to the ritual of conferring the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.  I can put it together in bits and pieces with what I have but that's all it is, bits and pieces.

I don't have access to any primary documents, if that's what you mean. I learned this from Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy's The Law of God which says The first Apostles accomplished the Mystery of Chrismation through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17; 19:2-6). Then at the end of the first century, the Mystery of Chrismation came to be performed by anointment with holy oil, after the example of the Old Testament Church, as the Apostles themselves were not always able to perform the Mystery through the laying on of hands.
...
The first chrism was sanctified by the Apostles themselves and their successors, the bishops. Only bishops may consecrate this chrism. By anointing with the chrism sanctified by the bishops, priests are able to perform the Mystery of Chrismation.


The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Confirmation is also pretty informative. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm

On no...I was not looking to have you access primary docs. at all.  That is not necessary.  I was looking for what you have here...an Orthodox generated estimation of the timing of the introduction of myron, which seems to me to be the beginning of looking at the two mysteries as something distinct from one another.   I have some historical references but they are Catholic sources and so I was asking for Orthodox sources.

Also, I am thinking now of an Antiochian site that I was looking at earlier this morning where Baptism is taught, in part, as the introduction of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of the soul, and Chrismation as the seal of the Holy Spirit where the action of Baptism is completed and perfected...if one does not look at perfecting as being a one time act in time....but as a strengthening of the initial grace of Baptism and the giving of the Holy Spirit indwelling, not just the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  

So it is clear that although they are intimately and intrinsically connected Baptism and Chrismation are catechised distinctly now, whereas in the desert fathers, particularly I am thinking of the Philokalia now, the discussions of baptism presume the healing of soul and body and illumination all in one breath.  There is no reference that I can find thus far to laying on of hands or anointing with myron.  So the distinguishing catechesis seems to have occurred over longer time.

I honestly did not keep the url because I was looking at so many and had not intended to discuss any of them in particular.  At any rate I don't think it is a false Orthodox view though I am open to correction.

I am also still interested in discussing the initial anointing with the oil of gladness in Baptism and the references in the desert fathers to the Holy Spirit, calling Him the "oil of gladness."  That would indicate a strong mystical and real presence of the Holy Spirit in the sacramental act of Baptism, for the healing of soul and body.

There were a couple of other things from that list I posted above that I was thinking to mention,  but my mind is distracted now by a related thought on the various catechetical homilies on mystagogy...so I'll just close this out here.

There is a Catholic liturgical historian who has analyzed the primary mystagogical texts of the first...what?...five centuries, and looks not only at the typological language used, but examines the extra-Scriptural language of realism introduced by SS. Cyril and John C. and also St. Ambrose of Milan.  He also looks at Theodore of Mopsuestia's mystagogical writings as well, though I am weakest in knowing them.

I was also wondering if there is such a compilation of texts done by an Orthodox author or authors that might be similar or treat the same ancient texts?

Mary

I remember what I wanted to add to this.

One of the habits of the Fathers in the mystagogical homolies, as I have learned it, is the fact that at one moment they will refer to mysteries as the total rite as a whole and the next they will be speaking of the ritual elements, or a cluster of the ritual elements as mysteries.

For St. John Chrysostom one of the greatest most compelling mysteries of Baptism, and one that he spends time on in more than one of the Stavronikita homilies is the gleaming garment of Baptism and that expression of the sacramental reality of the new man prompts him to develop the Pauline prayer 'All you who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ' as a central element of his catechesis on the mystagogy of the gleaming garment. 

If there was to be no real distinction between Baptism and Chrismation, why would not the Baptismal garment not be held aside until the ritual laving AND the anointing with myron were both complete?

And if there truly is a new man after having been plunged into the baptismal waters, and a soul regenerated in the image and likeness of God, is that not indicative of a great grace?  And if there is but one Baptism, for the forgiveness of sin and the healing of soul and body, does that not indicate that something of the grace of Baptism, and power of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism is already permanent within the newly regenerated soul?  So that the gleaming Baptismal garment is representative of a clear sacramental reality already in evidence in the Baptised person.

Which brings me to a question that I've been meaning to ask here.  I have been told that in Orthodoxy Baptism can only be administered once but Chrismation can be administered any number of times.   I ask this as a point of information, not comparison...eh?

M.



Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #93 on: June 01, 2010, 05:23:22 PM »


Which brings me to a question that I've been meaning to ask here.  I have been told that in Orthodoxy Baptism can only be administered once but Chrismation can be administered any number of times.   I ask this as a point of information, not comparison...eh?


Technically I suppose, yes, there is no limit to the number of times a person may be chrismated but in practice, no.

Outside of Baptism, Chrismation its used:

1. to receive back into the Church someone who has left it and returned repenting

2.  for the reception of Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Armenians (Armenians is the term used in the Book of Needs,  but it includes all Oriental Orthodox Christians.)

In practice, there are no multiple applications.  I recall a young man in Australia who wandered back to his former Roman Catholic Church.  He was taken back into Orthodoxy by Confession by a Serbian monk.  Then he wandered again and the bishop decreed that he may be received back into the Church by Chrismation on his deathbed.  I don't know if that was revised later and the epitemia lightened, but I would suspect so.

Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 01, 2010, 07:02:30 PM »

Baptism and Chrismation comprise one Service.

I think this is to such an extent that many of the Fathers did not even mention Chrismation/Confirmation aside from Baptism; that a strong distinction between the two is a Latinization; and that in a certain sense it is appropriate to consider Chrismation/Confirmation as part of the Sacred Mystery of Baptism, along with water baptism itself, annointing, exorcism, etc.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 01, 2010, 07:06:01 PM »

I know that you are heading into the Oriental Church and you may want to look at the teaching of Pope Shenouda and also Mar Bishoy (the second-ranking bishop of the Coptic Church) who teach that all the non-baptized, as also Protestants and Catholics are going to hell.

Do they accept EO baptisms?

The recognition of EO rites are quite various and I think kind of a mess within the Oriental churches right now. Some recognize none of them. Some recognize only Baptism. Some recognize Baptism and Chrismation (while requiring I suppose Confession before admittance). And then some recognize all in general and just receive EO to Communion without any other form of initiation.

Which ones do and which ones don't, etc.?

That main three instances that I can think of off the top of my head are:

1. Previous to the pastoral agreement with the Byzantine Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Coptic Church did not recognize any EO rites.
2. After the pastoral agreement they now recognize Baptism but still not Chrismation.
3. The Armenians generally, if I remember correctly, accept all EO rites and accept EO to Communion with no other form of initiation.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 01, 2010, 07:14:14 PM »

Does Baptism save or is it Baptism-Chrismation that saves?

A few points in response:

1. Technically we do not see Baptism and Chrismation/Confirmation in distinction to the degree that Rome has traditionally taught.
2. Baptism by water is fundamental to salvation and is part of the initial salvation process. In this sense we can say that Baptism saves while also saying that Baptism alone does not convey the fullness of initial salvation.
3. To answer what I think is substantially the question you were trying to ask, yes, Chrismation/Confirmation is fundamental to the initial salvation process.
4. It's possible that the first Communion is also fundamental to initial salvation process. I do not think the Church could see the process including Baptism by water and Baptism by the Spirit but not being fulfilled in Holy Communion. Perhaps it would be good if someone else could comment on whether or not we see the reception of Communion as part of the initial salvation process, the last part.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 01, 2010, 07:16:12 PM »

or leads me to doubt the truths of what I hear from other Orthodox sources.

What is the problem with that? Do you think that we do not recognize them as capable of error?  Huh
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 01, 2010, 07:20:23 PM »

that would illuminate the history of the addition of chrism to the ritual of conferring the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.

I'm also interested in hearing about this and wondering how the East justifies seemingly changing the original form of Confirmation.  Huh

Please note, you being Byzantine rite, this question could very well be asked of your background as well.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 07:21:33 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 01, 2010, 07:24:05 PM »

Also, I am thinking now of an Antiochian site that I was looking at earlier this morning where Baptism is taught, in part, as the introduction of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of the soul, and Chrismation as the seal of the Holy Spirit where the action of Baptism is completed and perfected...if one does not look at perfecting as being a one time act in time....but as a strengthening of the initial grace of Baptism and the giving of the Holy Spirit indwelling, not just the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  

That sounds essentially like what we're trying to say here.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #100 on: June 01, 2010, 07:31:26 PM »


It would be very helpful to me if you did not simply push-back against some external teachings and please deal with some of the internal inconsistencies in the presentation here that keep me from being entirely comfortable with all that you have said, or leads me to doubt the truths of what I hear from other Orthodox sources.


I think the Orthodox are comfortable with varying explanation of these things.  The underling teaching is common to us all. But we are happy to accommodate several theories as to how things operate.  These remain theories.  They remain fluid.  We can hold them in balance and not feel the need to choose one and throw the others away.

To hearken back to the manner of the change in the Bread and Wine...

That it changes noboby doubts...

But the way of it....?   We are fine with any number of theories about the way - impanation, consubsubstantion, transubstantiation.... all of them can be found in the Holy Fathers through the centuries.  It's not a problem.

I suppose what I am saying is that you may be striving to find a rigidity in Orthodoxy which is not there on this particular matter.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 01, 2010, 07:39:51 PM »

If there was to be no real distinction between Baptism and Chrismation, why would not the Baptismal garment not be held aside until the ritual laving AND the anointing with myron were both complete?

There is a real distinction between water baptism and chrismation. And they do aim to accomplish slightly different things. All of the different elements of the baptismal rite do. However, the point is that we do not think that the fullness of redemption that is fundamental to being a Christian and being part of the Church is accomplished until at least the end of Chrismation if not after the end of the first Communion (as I speculated). The water Baptism accomplishes, through the Holy Spirit working upon the catechumen, the remission and washing away of the blemishes of his/her sins. However, without Chrismation/Confirmation the catechumen is none the less left without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Another important thing to point out is that, having been Baptized and Chrismated in the EOC but 2 years ago, I'm pretty sure that I remember putting on the white garment even before the water baptism, not between the water baptism and the chrismation. If this is the general practice, your question would  obviously have to be revised.

And if there is but one Baptism, for the forgiveness of sin and the healing of soul and body, does that not indicate that something of the grace of Baptism, and power of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism is already

Again, Baptism isn't really complete until after Chrismation/Confirmation.

permanent within the newly regenerated soul?

We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church). Perhaps, theoretically, the change that is done to the bread and the wine in Communion could be understood as irreversible, however the Church would never just keep the consecrated elements sitting around forever without the intention of administering them as Communion.

I have been told that in Orthodoxy Baptism can only be administered once but Chrismation can be administered any number of times.

Considering this matter could potentially become dangerous if one makes the strong distinction between the two that you are making here. Essentially the fullness of salvation that is accomplished through Baptism overall can be lost, however through economy the Church has sometimes deemed it appropriate to restore that salvation only through one of its elements (Chrismation) rather than performing the entire rite again.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 01, 2010, 07:44:45 PM »

2.  for the reception of Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Armenians (Armenians is the term used in the Book of Needs,  but it includes all Oriental Orthodox Christians.)

I think the actual practice on the reception of OO into the EOC today is quite various. I have heard of OO being received by Chrismation, by Confession, just by a confession of faith, and sometimes just by an agreement to not return to the OOC.

In practice, there are no multiple applications.  I recall a young man in Australia who wandered back to his former Roman Catholic Church.  He was taken back into Orthodoxy by Confession by a Serbian monk.

I find reception of heterodox by anything "less" than Chrismation to be problematic, as it is my understanding that Chrismation is usually understood to be the means of conveying the fullness of the faith. Unless Communion itself is sometimes understood as conveying the fullness of the faith such that it could also accomplish that aim?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #103 on: June 01, 2010, 07:45:28 PM »


Do you have access to a history of this development?  This is not asked in doubt but I don't know whether or not there is an historical account that compiles what we have of original documents that would illuminate the history of the addition of chrism to the ritual of conferring the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.  I can put it together in bits and pieces with what I have but that's all it is, bits and pieces.

Some Orthodox theologians will point to 2 Corinthians 1:21, 22 and 1 John 2:20 and 27 but these are flimsy grounds.  That Orthodox writers feel this difficulty is apparent in the words of Patriarch Jeremiah, "The Mystery of Holy Myrrh is not brought out in the Holy Scriptures but is handed down by the disciples of the Word."

One Orthodox thought is that the Mystery can be traced back to Holy Thursday night and the foot washing and before the institution of the Last Supper...  This is the reason underlying the tradition of consecrating the Myrrh on Holy Thursday.   But this is also seen as an unlikely view and it won't really carry any weight.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #104 on: June 01, 2010, 07:52:48 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.

Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #105 on: June 01, 2010, 07:58:01 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.



I was talking about in the case of heresy or apostasy.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #106 on: June 01, 2010, 08:00:42 PM »


Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders.


You would find this article interesting...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372.html#msg300372

Do you know how the Churches of the Orient would approach it?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #107 on: June 01, 2010, 08:01:42 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.



I was talking about in the case of heresy or apostasy.

Not even then.  But this could be a peripheral Serbian view?

But we bump up against the Cyprianic horror of re-baptizing those who left the Church for heresy or schism and then wish to return.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 08:04:30 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 01, 2010, 08:03:38 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.



I was talking about in the case of heresy or apostasy.

Not even then.  But this could be a peripheral Serbian view?

Perhaps. The basic explanation I got when I was studying EOy was that a heretic or apostate loses the fullness of the faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and sanctifying grace and that is why Chrismation is to be performed on the re-entrance into the Church.

Should I look around for you for some sources that I might have gotten this teaching from?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #109 on: June 01, 2010, 08:09:07 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.



I was talking about in the case of heresy or apostasy.

Not even then.  But this could be a peripheral Serbian view?

Perhaps. The basic explanation I got when I was studying EOy was that a heretic or apostate loses the fullness of the faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and sanctifying grace and that is why Chrismation is to be performed on the re-entrance into the Church.

Should I look around for you for some sources that I might have gotten this teaching from?

No thanks.  You are quite correct about re-chrismation but you are very wrong about the loss of Baptism.  We re-chrismate those returning from heresy or schism but we never re-baptize them.  You will see in my message above that I am speaking of Baptism and not Chrismation.  Sorry if there was any confusion.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 08:11:01 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #110 on: June 01, 2010, 08:09:15 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.



I was talking about in the case of heresy or apostasy.

Not even then.  But this could be a peripheral Serbian view?

My understanding of grace is that without grace we would not be able to exist at all in any form.

Which is why I asked and keep asking in a variety of ways about the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and the action of the Holy Spirit in the sealing of myron.

My own personal understanding is that we are animated by grace at a very fundamental level from the moment of our conception through everlasting life.  God is with us, so to speak.

In Baptism the Holy Spirit effects an inner penetration of the soul which regenerates it, and it is this inner penetration and regeneration that I understand to be the grace of Baptism.

In Chrismation the Holy Spirit seals and rests in the soul.

But at no time, from the moment of attaining personhood through life everlasting, are we without the grace of God in some fashion.

Mary

« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 08:10:22 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 01, 2010, 08:09:35 PM »


Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders.


You would find this article interesting...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372.html#msg300372

Do you know how the Churches of the Orient would approach it?

My guess is that they would take the same approach as the more substantial tradition of laicization as found in the EOC I believe can be found in Eastern documents of the 4th and 5th centuries. But I couldn't say for sure as I am not familiar enough with the Oriental churches yet.

One significant thing I could point out is that I have heard (perhaps from a dubious source) is that the Armenian church officially recognizes the Priesthood of those from the Roman church. I don't know if this is really true, but if it is, I think it would be of relevance. However, it's important to point out that in other situations the various Oriental churches sometimes take drastically different approaches to the rites of other churches (for instance as I talked about with the reception of converts from the Byzantine tradition). In their minute theological and liturgical approaches, the Oriental churches prove to be quite diverse in comparison to each other.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #112 on: June 01, 2010, 08:11:04 PM »

Quote
Another important thing to point out is that, having been Baptized and Chrismated in the EOC but 2 years ago, I'm pretty sure that I remember putting on the white garment even before the water baptism, not between the water baptism and the chrismation.


This would be because you were baptised as an adult. Babies are baptised naked, and, after the triple immersion, are then dressed in a new white garment. While in ancient times, baptism, irrespective of age, was indeed conducted in the alltogether (hence the need for deaconesses), it would be practically unheard-of these days for an adult to be baptised naked. The closest I've seen is women in swimsuits covered by a simple white tunic, and men in shorts or, in one case, white BVDs.

The white garment is symbolic, but the true "putting on of Christ" goes much deeper than that.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 01, 2010, 08:14:58 PM »


Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders.


You would find this article interesting...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372.html#msg300372

Do you know how the Churches of the Orient would approach it?

My guess is that they would take the same approach as the more substantial tradition of laicization as found in the EOC I believe can be found in Eastern documents of the 4th and 5th centuries. But I couldn't say for sure as I am not familiar enough with the Oriental churches yet.

One significant thing I could point out is that I have heard (perhaps from a dubious source) is that the Armenian church officially recognizes the Priesthood of those from the Roman church. I don't know if this is really true, but if it is, I think it would be of relevance. However, it's important to point out that in other situations the various Oriental churches sometimes take drastically different approaches to the rites of other churches (for instance as I talked about with the reception of converts from the Byzantine tradition). In their minute theological and liturgical approaches, the Oriental churches prove to be quite diverse in comparison to each other.

In the spirit of more food for thought, in the second volume of his The Truth of Our Faith. On the Christian Mysteries, Elder Cleopa teaches an eternal priesthood.

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 01, 2010, 08:22:03 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.



I was talking about in the case of heresy or apostasy.

Not even then.  But this could be a peripheral Serbian view?

Perhaps. The basic explanation I got when I was studying EOy was that a heretic or apostate loses the fullness of the faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and sanctifying grace and that is why Chrismation is to be performed on the re-entrance into the Church.

Should I look around for you for some sources that I might have gotten this teaching from?

No thanks.  You are quite correct about re-chrismation but you are very wrong about the loss of Baptism.  We re-chrismate those returning from heresy or schism but we never re-baptize them.  You will see in my message above that I am speaking of Baptism and not Chrismation.  Sorry if there was any confusion.


My point was that with Chrismation as an essential part of the Sacred Mystery of Baptism, the integral effect of Baptism (fullness of faith, indwelling, grace) is lost by heresy or apostasy but it is restored merely by the repetition of Chrismation.

Are we at an understanding about that?

I was not suggesting that water baptism was performed again. I was only saying that chrismation was. However, I said that with Baptism as an integral Mystery (including annointing, baptism, exorcism, chrismation, etc.) the overall sanctifying effect is lost, but it is restored only by the repetition of only one of its elements.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 08:28:49 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #115 on: June 01, 2010, 08:26:47 PM »


In the spirit of more food for thought, in the second volume of his The Truth of Our Faith. On the Christian Mysteries, Elder Cleopa teaches an eternal priesthood.


It may well be so, but not for a priest who has been cast out by a bishop, using his apostolic powers to bind and loose in heaven and on earth.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #116 on: June 01, 2010, 08:29:34 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.



I was talking about in the case of heresy or apostasy.

Not even then.  But this could be a peripheral Serbian view?

Perhaps. The basic explanation I got when I was studying EOy was that a heretic or apostate loses the fullness of the faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and sanctifying grace and that is why Chrismation is to be performed on the re-entrance into the Church.

Should I look around for you for some sources that I might have gotten this teaching from?

No thanks.  You are quite correct about re-chrismation.  We re-chrismate those returning from heresy or schism but we never re-baptize them.  You will see in my message above that I am speaking of Baptism and not Chrismation.  Sorry if there was any confusion.


My point was that with Chrismation as an essential part of the Sacred Mystery of Baptism, the integral effect of Baptism (fullness of faith, indwelling, grace) is lost by heresy or apostasy but it is restored merely by the repetition of Chrismation.

Are we at an understanding about that?

Only if you remove Baptism from your statement above, saying that it may be dissolved.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 01, 2010, 08:30:50 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.



I was talking about in the case of heresy or apostasy.

Not even then.  But this could be a peripheral Serbian view?

My understanding of grace is that without grace we would not be able to exist at all in any form.

Which is why I asked and keep asking in a variety of ways about the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and the action of the Holy Spirit in the sealing of myron.

My own personal understanding is that we are animated by grace at a very fundamental level from the moment of our conception through everlasting life.  God is with us, so to speak.

In Baptism the Holy Spirit effects an inner penetration of the soul which regenerates it, and it is this inner penetration and regeneration that I understand to be the grace of Baptism.

In Chrismation the Holy Spirit seals and rests in the soul.

But at no time, from the moment of attaining personhood through life everlasting, are we without the grace of God in some fashion.

Mary



I agree that grace in some form is in all of us and is involved in the goings-on of our lives.

However, I assumed that it was just understood that we were talking about sanctifying grace.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #118 on: June 01, 2010, 08:32:36 PM »


In the spirit of more food for thought, in the second volume of his The Truth of Our Faith. On the Christian Mysteries, Elder Cleopa teaches an eternal priesthood.


It may well be so, but not for a priest who has been cast out by a bishop, using his apostolic powers to bind and loose in heaven and on earth.

He apparently does not make any distinctions.  A priest is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.  So it seems to be another one of those times when there are a variety of ways to express the truths of the faith, as you noted above.

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 01, 2010, 08:37:37 PM »


We don't really believe that any of the Sacred Mysteries are necessarily permanent (I thought this over the other day). Matrimony can be dissolved by the severing of the substantial relationship. Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders. Baptism/Chrismation/Confirmation can likewise be dissolved (in the sense that sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost and must be restored if re-entering the Church).


Chris,

I would have to disagree about the loss of baptismal grace.   The tradition which I have received is that baptismal grace and the indwelling of the Spirit continues even in the midst of the most grave and persistent sins.    Hampered and barely twitching but never entirely removed from the soul.  The Holy Spirit only leaves such a baptized soul at the time of death.



I was talking about in the case of heresy or apostasy.

Not even then.  But this could be a peripheral Serbian view?

Perhaps. The basic explanation I got when I was studying EOy was that a heretic or apostate loses the fullness of the faith, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and sanctifying grace and that is why Chrismation is to be performed on the re-entrance into the Church.

Should I look around for you for some sources that I might have gotten this teaching from?

No thanks.  You are quite correct about re-chrismation.  We re-chrismate those returning from heresy or schism but we never re-baptize them.  You will see in my message above that I am speaking of Baptism and not Chrismation.  Sorry if there was any confusion.


My point was that with Chrismation as an essential part of the Sacred Mystery of Baptism, the integral effect of Baptism (fullness of faith, indwelling, grace) is lost by heresy or apostasy but it is restored merely by the repetition of Chrismation.

Are we at an understanding about that?

Only if you remove Baptism from your statement above, saying that it may be dissolved.

It seems nonsensical and contradictory for you to, on the one hand convey that Baptism and Chrismation are the same service with the same overall effect, but on the other hand that Chrismation can be dissolved without Baptism also being dissolved.  Huh

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #120 on: June 01, 2010, 08:39:48 PM »


Holy Orders can be dissolved by heresy or apostasy or through the intentional laicization of a cleric who has in some other way abused their orders.


You would find this article interesting...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372.html#msg300372

Do you know how the Churches of the Orient would approach it?

My guess is that they would take the same approach as the more substantial tradition of laicization as found in the EOC I believe can be found in Eastern documents of the 4th and 5th centuries. But I couldn't say for sure as I am not familiar enough with the Oriental churches yet.

One significant thing I could point out is that I have heard (perhaps from a dubious source) is that the Armenian church officially recognizes the Priesthood of those from the Roman church. I don't know if this is really true, but if it is, I think it would be of relevance. However, it's important to point out that in other situations the various Oriental churches sometimes take drastically different approaches to the rites of other churches (for instance as I talked about with the reception of converts from the Byzantine tradition). In their minute theological and liturgical approaches, the Oriental churches prove to be quite diverse in comparison to each other.

In the spirit of more food for thought, in the second volume of his The Truth of Our Faith. On the Christian Mysteries, Elder Cleopa teaches an eternal priesthood.

M.

The Sacred Mysteries can at once be potentially dissolvable or potentially eternal if not dissolved. I have even heard a number of EO sources claim that Matrimony is eternal.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 01, 2010, 08:42:12 PM »


My understanding of grace is that without grace we would not be able to exist at all in any form.

Which is why I asked and keep asking in a variety of ways about the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and the action of the Holy Spirit in the sealing of myron.

My own personal understanding is that we are animated by grace at a very fundamental level from the moment of our conception through everlasting life.  God is with us, so to speak.

In Baptism the Holy Spirit effects an inner penetration of the soul which regenerates it, and it is this inner penetration and regeneration that I understand to be the grace of Baptism.

In Chrismation the Holy Spirit seals and rests in the soul.

But at no time, from the moment of attaining personhood through life everlasting, are we without the grace of God in some fashion.

Mary



I agree that grace in some form is in all of us and is involved in the goings-on of our lives.

However, I assumed that it was just understood that we were talking about sanctifying grace.

Oh....I didn't mean to shift grounds on you.  I was just, out loud, filling things out in its larger symmetry.  I tend not to think of the elements that I have listed above in separation.  It is all of a piece.  

None of this is really important to me at all except in terms of its enhancement of one's spiritual life and interior contemplation.  

Its good to share faith where we can but I am not an apologist actually.  I lead an active spiritual life and that is what drives most of my thinking.  If God is willing to direct me toward an agreeable bishop, I will take religious vows as a penitential hermit.

M.
Logged

LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,116


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #122 on: June 01, 2010, 08:43:23 PM »

Quote
A priest is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek

Not quite. The only priest who is "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek", and a great high priest at that, is Christ. EM, your Latin slip is showing.  Smiley

Orthodox priests and bishops who have been canonically defrocked remain as laymen, despite what they may wish to do later, such as set up schismatic or vagante groups.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: June 01, 2010, 08:45:33 PM »

Quote
A priest is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek

Not quite. The only priest who is "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek", and a great high priest at that, is Christ. EM, your Latin slip is showing.  Smiley

Orthodox priests and bishops who have been canonically defrocked remain as laymen, despite what they may wish to do later, such as set up schismatic or vagante groups.

I was just repeating what Elder Cleopa was saying in his little catechism.  Don't shoot the messenger  Smiley
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 08:45:53 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: June 01, 2010, 08:48:29 PM »

Quote
A priest is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek

Not quite. The only priest who is "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek", and a great high priest at that, is Christ. EM, your Latin slip is showing.  Smiley

Orthodox priests and bishops who have been canonically defrocked remain as laymen, despite what they may wish to do later, such as set up schismatic or vagante groups.

Oh! you remind me...this is totally off topic

But if a hieromonk is defrocked is he busted to secular private or may he remain a monk

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: June 01, 2010, 08:51:14 PM »

Quote
A priest is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek

Not quite. The only priest who is "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek", and a great high priest at that, is Christ. EM, your Latin slip is showing.  Smiley

Orthodox priests and bishops who have been canonically defrocked remain as laymen, despite what they may wish to do later, such as set up schismatic or vagante groups.

I was just repeating what Elder Cleopa was saying in his little catechism.  Don't shoot the messenger  Smiley

Read message 115 above.

Something is niggling at the back of my brain.... did Fr Cleopa say (or not say) that those priests who had gone into schism over the Old Calendar lacked the grace to perform the Mysteries?  I may be wrong?  Anything in your book?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: June 01, 2010, 08:56:41 PM »

Quote
A priest is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek

Not quite. The only priest who is "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek", and a great high priest at that, is Christ. EM, your Latin slip is showing.  Smiley

Orthodox priests and bishops who have been canonically defrocked remain as laymen, despite what they may wish to do later, such as set up schismatic or vagante groups.

I was just repeating what Elder Cleopa was saying in his little catechism.  Don't shoot the messenger  Smiley

Read message 115 above.

Something is niggling at the back of my brain.... did Fr Cleopa say (or not say) that those priests who had gone into schism over the Old Calendar lacked the grace to perform the Mysteries?  I may be wrong?  Anything in your book?

I will have to get the book out and look...in next day or so.
Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #127 on: June 01, 2010, 09:02:20 PM »

Quote
A priest is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek

Not quite. The only priest who is "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek", and a great high priest at that, is Christ. EM, your Latin slip is showing.  Smiley

Orthodox priests and bishops who have been canonically defrocked remain as laymen, despite what they may wish to do later, such as set up schismatic or vagante groups.

Oh! you remind me...this is totally off topic

But if a hieromonk is defrocked is he busted to secular private or may he remain a monk

M.

He remains a monk.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: June 01, 2010, 09:11:11 PM »

Quote
A priest is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek

Not quite. The only priest who is "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek", and a great high priest at that, is Christ. EM, your Latin slip is showing.  Smiley

Orthodox priests and bishops who have been canonically defrocked remain as laymen, despite what they may wish to do later, such as set up schismatic or vagante groups.

Oh! you remind me...this is totally off topic

But if a hieromonk is defrocked is he busted to secular private or may he remain a monk

M.

He remains a monk.

Makes sense.  I thought as much but wanted to be certain.

Thank you!  Twice today  Smiley

M.
Logged

Tags: baptism Holy Spirit 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.532 seconds with 155 queries.