|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: When Chrismation and Confirmation are Separate Things
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
When Anglicans, Lutherans, etc., anoint the newly baptized and use language referring to being sealed with the Holy Spirit - which in the RCC and Orthodox Churches is the language used at the very moment of administering the sacrament of confirmation/chrismation, do the more catholic Anglicans and Lutherans believe that only the sacrament of Baptism is occurring or that an additional sacrament of chrismation - separate from confirmation (an 8th sacrament?) is occurring?
The RC prayers for anointing an infant after baptism make no mention of being "sealed" with the Holy Spirit because the language of sealing is reserved to confirmation.
In the Eastern Orthodox Churches chrismation, which is considered the equivalent of the sacrament called confirmation in the West, is always administered directly following a baptism and uses the language of being sealed with the Holy Spirit. (Chrismation is also used for converts who have already been baptized, and I have read that in some churches it is used for people who have left the faith and are being brought back in, even if that person has been chrismated before).
So Anglicans, Lutherans, and any other Protestants who have what appears to be an optional chrismation rite right after baptism, if you are liturgical enough to be anointing with oil at this point, do you believe:
a) That Sealing with the Holy Spirit is something that happens with the water and words of Baptism and does not need any anointing with oil to happen (as the words of the 1979 US Episcopal BCP Rite of Baptism seems to suggest (You Have Been Sealed with the Holy Spirit in Baptism) and the same church's confirmation rite also seems to suggest (by talking about sealing with the holy spirit as something that happened in the past at baptism and invoking the Holy Spirit to do all kinds of things at Confirmation but making no mention of a sealing occurring at Confirmation)? Is this what most Anglo-Catholics believe? What about catholic-leaning Lutherans?
b) That sealing with the Holy Spirit is a separate sacrament and occurs at chrismation after baptism if such language is used, even if a separate rite of confirmation exists in your church. Is this separate rite of confirmation also a sacrament? Does it also involve being sealed with the Holy Spirit even if it does not use that language as something happening at the moment of confirmation (rather than something that happened in the past at baptism)?
c) That sealing with the Holy Spirit only happens at confirmation, regardless of the language used at confirmation or at the optional anointing after baptism, and that confirmation is a sacrament but the anointing after baptism is not.
Also, do other Anglican Churches use different language and have sealing language at confirmation and not at baptism? What about Lutheran Churches?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
As a life-long practising Anglican of over 60 years standing, I had never heard of the word Chrismation, so I have just been googling this and Wikipedia is very factual about it.
One interesting fact I have picked up from there is that the Italians generally use Cresima rather than Confirmazione for Confirmation - Cresima being the word for Chrismation.
My impression is that the term Chrismation belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Rite. As far as I can see the anointing (by whatever name) is contained within the Rite of Confirmation, as an integral part. If Chrismation does occur outside Confirmation, then that is for others to say, who are more knowledgable than I am.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
In the Eastern Orthodox Churches chrismation, which is considered the equivalent of the sacrament called confirmation in the West, is always administered directly following a baptism and uses the language of being sealed with the Holy Spirit.
We don't really compare our sacraments to yours. You are welcome of course to compare yours to ours, if you so desire. "Confirmation" carries the idea of confirming what was done to you in baptism. We don't have anything like that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
As a life-long practising Anglican of over 60 years standing, I had never heard of the word Chrismation, so I have just been googling this and Wikipedia is very factual about it.
One interesting fact I have picked up from there is that the Italians generally use Cresima rather than Confirmazione for Confirmation - Cresima being the word for Chrismation.
My impression is that the term Chrismation belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Rite. As far as I can see the anointing (by whatever name) is contained within the Rite of Confirmation, as an integral part. If Chrismation does occur outside Confirmation, then that is for others to say, who are more knowledgable than I am.
Anointing with the Oil of Chrism is an integral part of the baptismal rite of the Scottish Episcopal Church:
http://sec.inigomedialtd.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/holy-baptism-2006.pdf
Though I can't see the term "Chrismation" used in the text. This does, however, seem to be a relatively recent change and this anointing was done by the non-jurors at confirmation.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
In the Eastern Orthodox Churches chrismation, which is considered the equivalent of the sacrament called confirmation in the West, is always administered directly following a baptism and uses the language of being sealed with the Holy Spirit.
We don't really compare our sacraments to yours. You are welcome of course to compare yours to ours, if you so desire. "Confirmation" carries the idea of confirming what was done to you in baptism. We don't have anything like that.
I was worried about that sentence when I wrote it. "Equivalent" was a poor, inaccurate, and arrogant word choice. I apologize. Would analogue be a slightly better word? I mean in comparing the two rites, not the terms used to refer to them.
From the little I know, it seems the West has long been much more confused as to what Confirmation is and when it should occur than the East has been about Chrismation. That's one of the reasons I asked the questions in the OP.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
As a life-long practising Anglican of over 60 years standing, I had never heard of the word Chrismation, so I have just been googling this and Wikipedia is very factual about it.
One interesting fact I have picked up from there is that the Italians generally use Cresima rather than Confirmazione for Confirmation - Cresima being the word for Chrismation.
My impression is that the term Chrismation belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Rite. As far as I can see the anointing (by whatever name) is contained within the Rite of Confirmation, as an integral part. If Chrismation does occur outside Confirmation, then that is for others to say, who are more knowledgable than I am.
Anointing with the Oil of Chrism is an integral part of the baptismal rite of the Scottish Episcopal Church:
http://sec.inigomedialtd.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/holy-baptism-2006.pdf
Though I can't see the term "Chrismation" used in the text. This does, however, seem to be a relatively recent change and this anointing was done by the non-jurors at confirmation.
Does the SEC use any reference to "sealing" in the Confirmation rite or is it only used when anointing in the Baptismal rite?
I know that Anglo Catholics aren't necessarily into ex opere operato and all that, but it seems strange to use the words (ie, the talk of sealing) that are as much the words of RC Confirmation as "I Baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" are the essential words of Baptism and have those words be part of the baptismal rite and not part of the separate confirmation rite.
Did some Anglican liturgy scholars decide at some point in the 20th Century that Sealing with the Holy Spirit, despite what those crazy RC's say, is something that happens at Baptism and that Confirmation is something different? The same liturgy scholars that argued that the whole life of the Church flows from Baptism while the RC's talked of the Eucharist as the source and summit of the life of the Church?
And what do those Lutherans who anoint and talk about sealing during the baptismal rite think about all of this?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
As a life-long practising Anglican of over 60 years standing, I had never heard of the word Chrismation, so I have just been googling this and Wikipedia is very factual about it.
One interesting fact I have picked up from there is that the Italians generally use Cresima rather than Confirmazione for Confirmation - Cresima being the word for Chrismation.
My impression is that the term Chrismation belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Rite. As far as I can see the anointing (by whatever name) is contained within the Rite of Confirmation, as an integral part. If Chrismation does occur outside Confirmation, then that is for others to say, who are more knowledgable than I am.
But in most of the Anglican Communion, anointing is optional at Confirmation and it is the laying on of hands and prayers that are considered the essential part. Also, do you know of any Anglican liturgy of confirmation that makes reference to being sealed with the holy spirit at the moment of the laying on of hands or anointing with oil? All I see in the 1979 BCP is a reference in the past tense to being sealed with the Holy Spirit at Baptism, and that in the prayers preceding the laying on of hands and not a reference to any sealing that is associated with Confirmation.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The "anointing by the Holy Spirit" or "baptism by the Spirit" aspects are analogous. As I said, however, the "confirming what your parents and godparents pledged at your (infant) baptism" part is simply missing from us -- because we do both baptisms (so to speak) back to back.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Current Church of England texts:
Book of Common Prayer version says:
quote:
Then shall the Bishop say,
DO ye here, in the presence of God, and of this Congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your Baptism; ratifying and confirming the same in your own persons, and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe and to do all those things, which your Godfathers and Godmothers then undertook for you?
The Common Worship version is far more tied into baptism.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The "anointing by the Holy Spirit" or "baptism by the Spirit" aspects are analogous. As I said, however, the "confirming what your parents and godparents pledged at your (infant) baptism" part is simply missing from us -- because we do both baptisms (so to speak) back to back.
In my Anglican days, I only once heard any expression of confirmation as the individual confirming what their parents had done, and that was by an arch-protestant leader of one of the youth groups when my then parish was debating welcoming children to communion prior to confirmation. I swear this woman was one step away from foaming at the mouth at the suggestion that children ought to receive communion "when they hadn't made those promises for themselves", reducing the sacrament of baptism to some sort of verbal contract.
On all other occasions, including in the confirmation rite itself, the words and actions made it clear that it was God confirming the Holy Spirit in the person taking part in the sacrament. Which raises the question in the OP. If that is indeed what is happening in confirmation, what do churches think they're doing when they chrismate immediately after baptism?
ETA: That having been said, I was raised in the CPWI and not the CofE. My time in the latter was spent almost exclusively in Anglo-Catholic parishes.
[ 05. August 2017, 22:12: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I swear this woman was one step away from foaming at the mouth at the suggestion that children ought to receive communion "when they hadn't made those promises for themselves", reducing the sacrament of baptism to some sort of verbal contract.
On the contrary, we baptise infants because baptism is the rite of entry into the Church, and infants are as welcome in the church as older children or adults. All of this you know of course. But I had to get it out.
On who is doing the confirming, see Curiosity's post just above yours.
quote:
If that is indeed what is happening in confirmation, what do churches think they're doing when they chrismate immediately after baptism?
I got nothin'.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I swear this woman was one step away from foaming at the mouth at the suggestion that children ought to receive communion "when they hadn't made those promises for themselves", reducing the sacrament of baptism to some sort of verbal contract.
On the contrary, we baptise infants because baptism is the rite of entry into the Church, and infants are as welcome in the church as older children or adults. All of this you know of course. But I had to get it out.
Quite so, my brother.
quote:
On who is doing the confirming, see Curiosity's post just above yours.
This is perhaps a good example of why the BCP was viewed with such disdain in the Anglo-Catholic circles of my younger days. Many of us liked to imagine it didn't exist. I don't pretend that this wasn't delusional in its own way, for our church cited this very volume as one of the core expressions of its understanding of Christian doctrine, but nonetheless that's how it was.
Still, I see much good emanating from the CofE that Orthodox would do well to contemplate.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Since there's been a repeated question about Lutherans--
I'm sorry to say that we don't have much to contribute to this discussion. I am not aware of any Lutherans who see chrismation/sealing as something separate from the baptism act, and indeed, I have never run across a case where oil has been used. For us there are two sacraments, baptism and communion (though some get picky picky about absolution, whatever, it depends on one's definition).
We do practice confirmation, but as a rite, not a sacrament, similar I suppose to marriage or ordination. We do not think it makes a spiritual change to the individual undergoing it--at least, not in a sacramental way, we certainly hope that the more usual power of word and faith etc. are in play. I don't think we would kick particularly hard if someone wanted to use oil--the big question would be "why?" so as to make sure they weren't devaluing baptism itself--but I'm not aware of any Lutherans who do, and would be interested to hear of any you know.
This is why, for example, Mr. Lamb has never been confirmed (due to his unusual journey into Lutheranism, he was never offered it). If he had not been baptized or communed, people would be falling over themselves to get that set straight. But as for missing an official confirmation act, well, we figure the ritual value of that has been more than compensated for by thirty-odd years of faithful service in missions.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Still, I see much good emanating from the CofE that Orthodox would do well to contemplate.
That's a thread unto itself. If you build it, I will come.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
When Anglicans, Lutherans, etc., anoint the newly baptized and use language referring to being sealed with the Holy Spirit . . . .
I guess we fall under "etc.," so I'll chime in. Anointing with oil, along with laying on of hands and signing with the cross, were long forbidden among Presbyterians but no longer are, at least in the PC(USA). Anointing is becoming increasingly common, though it is still far from ubiquitous.
As with Lutherana (per LC), baptism is a sacrament for us, while confirmation is not. Anointing does not add anything to baptism in our understanding—baptism is complete with water and the baptismal formula. Laying on of hands and signing with the cross, with or without oil, are understood simply to illustrate or emphasize what has just happened in baptism.
In our understanding, confirmation*, which we would traditionally term an ordinance, doesn't do anything in the sense that baptism does. It is a rite by which those baptized as infants publicly profess their faith and assume "adult" responsibilities in the church.** (Those baptized as adults are not confirmed, because the public profession of faith would be part of the baptismal rite.) Children who have been baptized may receive communion, but those baptized as infants who have not been confirmed (made a public profession of faith) cannot, for example, vote in congregational meetings or be ordained.
* While the term "confirmation" is commonly used, our liturgical documents generally do not use it. It is formally referred to as "Reaffirmation of the Baptismal Covenant for Those Making a Public Profession of Faith." While that does express an understanding what's going on, you can see why it's still commonly called "confirmation."
** In the Reformed Tradition, a connection has always been made between baptism and circumcision. In that light, a similar connection might be drawn between confirmation and bar/bat mitzvah.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A newly baptised one at St Sanity is anointed with oil, but I doubt you'd call it chrismation. I checked APBA this morning for the words accompanying the anointing and they are "I sign you with the sign of the Cross to show you are Christ's forever".
General opinion here would be that confirmation is a sacrament, but not a dominical one.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
If I remember my sacramental history correctly, the anointing with Chrism in Baptism is merely a continuation of an anointing that was originally for Chrismation/Confirmation that was originally a part of the Sacrament of Initiation in the Western Church. we originally did the same thing as the Orthodox, all three Sacraments at once. There are some in the RC Church who would like to go back to that. Oh, and that is also why in the old days, folks didn't take First Communion until after Confirmation. Keeping the order right, Baptism-Chrismation-Communion, even if they were separated.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
My impression is that the term Chrismation belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Rite.
It has been practiced in anglo-catholic circles for decades.
I don't doubt that; I am talking about it being called Chrismation within the Anglican Communion.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BabyWombat
Shipmate
# 18552
|
Posted
I am not anywhere close to the theological expertise of others here, but I will share what our practice and understanding is in my liturgically Anglo-Catholic, liberal TEC diocese and parish.
We will baptize a four month old boy next Sunday, lets call him John. My colleague will pour the water (since she is better with squirmy infants than I) and I will anoint with Chrism, using the words “You are sealed by the Holy Spirit in baptism and marked as Christ’s own forever.” Our understanding is that John is then, to be a bit flip, “signed, sealed and delivered” to the world as a full fledged member of the body of Christ. It was only two years ago we baptized the father of this child, lets call him Jasper, and anointed him with Chrism. We consider Jasper and John equally full members of the Body, admittedly with different abilities and ministries. (And equal with Mary, the wife/mother in this family, received from RCC having been baptized and confirmed there.)
When our bishop was with us last year, he confirmed Jasper: no anointing but instead a laying on of hands as in ordination, both of them standing. Our understanding was that in that act Jasper was admitting his readiness and willingness to take his role as an adult in the community of faith, taking on an active ministry, and empowered by the bishop to do so. Indeed, we assigned Jasper coffee making and dish washing, and are glad we did!
So for us: Baptism with anointing with Chrism is full entry into the Body; confirmation that acknowledging and claiming one’s call to minister as a member of the Body.
--------------------
Let us, with a gladsome mind…..
Posts: 102 | From: US | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
C of E Common Worship provides for the possibility of two anointings. One at the signing of the cross after the Decision; oil, if used, is the Oil of Baptism or Catechumens. There is a blessing following baptism which prays 'pour upon you the riches of his grace,
that within the company of Christ’s pilgrim people
you may daily be renewed by his anointing Spirit,' words which suggest a lavish anointing, and the notes allow for this, using the Oil of Chrism.
I haven't begun to think about the theological implications of this in relation to subsequent confirmation. But since practice varies so much in the church I'm sure God can handle differences of interpretation.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
My impression is that the term Chrismation belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Rite.
It has been practiced in anglo-catholic circles for decades.
I don't doubt that; I am talking about it being called Chrismation within the Anglican Communion.
Well, it uses the oil of chrism and I've known it as 'chrismation' since I became an anglo-catholic in the 1960s.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
keibat
Shipmate
# 5287
|
Posted
Thanks to Angloid, who beat me to it report the wording used in the Common Worship [CW] Baptism liturgy a) at the signing with the cross / Oil of Catechumens and b) after the act of Baptism with the Oil of Chrism - my wife just checked and said there is no wording specified for this in CW (and it is optional). Neither of us can recall the term seal being used anywhere in the CW Baptism liturgy, but if it is, it has very low prominence.
Actually I've become increasingly aware of the term seal [with the Spirit] recently, since it occurs in a number of CW collects, and I have no clear understanding of what it means, or is intended to mean [in CW] - I'd been increasingly inclined to suspect that it was little more than a feel-good, 'poetic' term, and should be replaced by something clearer. So the OP query took my by surprise both in treating it as a precise theological term, and in assuming its use was widespread Anglican practice (it's now been made clear earlier in this thread that the term is used after Baptism in the TEC rite). Nor for that matter have I ever come across the term chrismation in an Anglican context - for me it's most definitely an Orthodox term.
--------------------
keibat from the finnish north and the lincs east rim
Posts: 93 | From: Alford, Lincs + Turku, Finland | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Angloid - am I right in inferring that oil at baptism is optional, then? I was baptised as an adult (full immersion) in an evangelical Anglican church - no oil, but just the sign of the cross on my forehead afterwards. I have been anointed when I was confirmed so suppose it doesn't much matter, but I was having a minor panic reading this!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Angloid - am I right in inferring that oil at baptism is optional, then? I was baptised as an adult (full immersion) in an evangelical Anglican church - no oil, but just the sign of the cross on my forehead afterwards. I have been anointed when I was confirmed so suppose it doesn't much matter, but I was having a minor panic reading this!
Not Angloid, but yes. The essential element is water.
Stonespring's original question doesn't really fit the context of the CofE. It's asking something I've never heard anyone even speculate about.
The signing usually comes before baptism in Common Worship but may come after and did come after in the BCP - I suspect not many people know that!
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
My impression is that the term Chrismation belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Rite.
It has been practiced in anglo-catholic circles for decades.
I don't doubt that; I am talking about it being called Chrismation within the Anglican Communion.
Well, it uses the oil of chrism and I've known it as 'chrismation' since I became an anglo-catholic in the 1960s.
This is a common and unfortunate phrasing. In Orthodoxy, "chrismation" refers to the sacrament the West knows as Confirmation, which is administered at the time of baptism.
In the last few decades in the West, the anointing with Chrism at the time of baptism has become known as "chrismation", without the implication that it is equivalent to the Eastern practice. This is understandable but regrettable in my opinion, as it leads to much confusion especially in an ecumenical context.
Remember also that chrism is not only used at baptism/confirmation. It is also used at ordination, consecration of buildings and altars, coronations, etc.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
Despite my being a long-standing and well instructed anglo-catholic for decades, somehow the word Chrismation (anointing called by that name) has eluded me until now.
They say you learn something new every day and this isn't the first time I have learnt something new on the boards of Ship of Fools.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
Thanks to Angloid, who beat me to it report the wording used in the Common Worship [CW] Baptism liturgy a) at the signing with the cross / Oil of Catechumens and b) after the act of Baptism with the Oil of Chrism - my wife just checked and said there is no wording specified for this in CW (and it is optional). Neither of us can recall the term seal being used anywhere in the CW Baptism liturgy, but if it is, it has very low prominence.
The rubrics (and explanatory notes) of Common worship state that oil (pure olive oil, the oil of baptism or catechumens) may be used at the signing of the Cross after the Decision but before the Baptism. The oil of Chrism may be used to accompany the prayer after Baptism, that I quoted above. They then go on to complicate things by saying the sign of the cross may be given after baptism, using the 'chrism' formula.
The sign of the cross, in one position or other, is mandatory; the use of oil isn't. Similarly, the prayer (or blessing) about anointing can be accompanied by an actual anointing but doesn't have to be. But the blessing itself is not optional.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Since there's been a repeated question about Lutherans--
I'm sorry to say that we don't have much to contribute to this discussion. I am not aware of any Lutherans who see chrismation/sealing as something separate from the baptism act, and indeed, I have never run across a case where oil has been used. For us there are two sacraments, baptism and communion (though some get picky picky about absolution, whatever, it depends on one's definition).
We do practice confirmation, but as a rite, not a sacrament, similar I suppose to marriage or ordination. We do not think it makes a spiritual change to the individual undergoing it--at least, not in a sacramental way, we certainly hope that the more usual power of word and faith etc. are in play. I don't think we would kick particularly hard if someone wanted to use oil--the big question would be "why?" so as to make sure they weren't devaluing baptism itself--but I'm not aware of any Lutherans who do, and would be interested to hear of any you know.
This is why, for example, Mr. Lamb has never been confirmed (due to his unusual journey into Lutheranism, he was never offered it). If he had not been baptized or communed, people would be falling over themselves to get that set straight. But as for missing an official confirmation act, well, we figure the ritual value of that has been more than compensated for by thirty-odd years of faithful service in missions.
I mentioned Lutherans because at a liberal, catholic-leaning (there were images of Our Lady of Guadalupe venerated by the Spanish-speaking congregants) ELCA parish I was married at, being sealed with the Holy Spirit was mentioned when a baptized infant was anointed with oil following baptism. Knowing also that confirmation (at a later age than most are baptized) is common in the ELCA, I included Lutherans in my question, even though I know Lutherans, even catholic-leaning ones, generally do not call Confirmation a Sacrament.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
This is a common and unfortunate phrasing. In Orthodoxy, "chrismation" refers to the sacrament the West knows as Confirmation, which is administered at the time of baptism.
In the last few decades in the West, the anointing with Chrism at the time of baptism has become known as "chrismation", without the implication that it is equivalent to the Eastern practice. This is understandable but regrettable in my opinion, as it leads to much confusion especially in an ecumenical context.
My question isn't so much about calling Anglican (or other non-RC Western Church) post-baptismal anointing that is not confirmation chrismation. It is about those places (which it seems from people's comments does not include the C of E but does include TEC in the US and SEC in Scotland, at least) where the language (or very similar language) of the RC Sacrament of confirmation is used at the post-baptismal anointing but not so much at confirmation. The RC post baptismal anointing for infants (which is usually not used for adults since they are generally confirmed right after baptism at the Easter Vigil) talks about being anointed priest prophet and king but does not talk about being Sealed with the Holy Spirit which are words specific to the moment of being anointed at RC confirmation.
Whoever decided to start including being sealed with the Holy Spirit in the prayers at post baptismal anointing (the anointing itself is optional, but the prayers are not and if there is anointing it is done at the moment of this prayer) in TEC and SEC must have known that these words were an allusion to RC Confirmation and Orthodox Chrismation, even if those Anglican liturgical scholars did not believe that the prayers and/or anointing were an additional sacrament or had anything to do with Anglican Confirmation.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I think whatever Liturgical scholars that put the prayers about being sealed with the Holy Spirit right after Baptism in TEC (US) and SEC (Scotland), with the option of anointing, liked that it was a prayer with ancient, ecumenical roots (it is used in the Orthodox rite of Chrismation, but the Orthodox consider it a separate sacrament from baptism, and as Mousethief has pointed out, the theology behind Chrismation is not the same as the theology behind Confirmation in the West, even if the rites share historical roots). These same Liturgical Scholars changed the words about sealing, though, to have them say that the new Christian was sealed with the Holy Spirit "in Baptism," perhaps either to underline the mainstream Anglican belief that only Baptism and the Eucharist are Domenical Sacraments, or as a compromise wording to assuage those Anglicans in those provinces who would object to wording implying that some rite separate from baptism was occurring while leaving the wording Anglican-ly vague enough to not worry Anglo-Catholics who like the Orthodox connection and do not worry about the similarity with the RC Confirmation rite, even if Anglican confirmation is generally separate from any post-Baptismal prayers/anointing. They may also have added "in Baptism" because there was a liturgical trend, at least in the TEC 1979 BCP in the US, to talk about everything in the church flowing from baptism.
They probably avoided the RC wording of the prayers during the post-baptismal anointing (about being anointed priest, prophet, and king, etc, with no mention of sealing with the Holy Spirit because those words in the RCC are reserved for the separate Sacrament of Confirmation) because they would upset the more protestant parts of those provinces, and also because those words make the actual anointing with oil non-optional. Oddly enough, the wording taken from the Orthodox sacrament of Chrismation and the RC sacrament of Confirmation, modified to add the words "in Baptism," was possibly seen as being less controversial than the wording from the RC post baptismal anointing, because they are short, make no mention of anointing, and when analyzed without knowledge of their history are vague enough to mean whatever your Churchmanship would like them to mean.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
keibat
Shipmate
# 5287
|
Posted
It seems to me that Stonespring speaks wisely. Note also that in the C of E at least, writing and approving liturgy is the responsibility of the Liturgical Commission, whom I take to represent the Church more widely (various pastoral, ecclesiopolitical dimensions etc?) and not merely 'liturgical scholars' - thus – I surmise – increasing the chances that wording may be chosen for a wider range of factors than specific, historically-grounded theological significance alone.
--------------------
keibat from the finnish north and the lincs east rim
Posts: 93 | From: Alford, Lincs + Turku, Finland | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
