OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 03:42:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Holy Spirit and Baptism  (Read 11712 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
« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,705


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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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: 7,007


"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
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: 20,070


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
Warned
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: 37,605



« 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
Warned
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: 37,605



« 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: 20,070


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
Warned
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: 37,605



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,188


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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: 7,007


"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
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

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 0.241 seconds with 71 queries.