Chrismation
#11
Well, they're not actually treated or even thought of any differently in the East, because as I said that distinction between Sacraments and sacramentals is not emphasized in the East, and some even claim it is an artificial Western theological construct
Perhaps they may not be as catergorized as they are in the East as all seven sacraments were not 'defined' till Trent.
Yet Martin Luther or one of his associates went to the schismatic Eastern bishop or patriarch to see if he would approve Luther's doctrine of only two scaraments. The bishop replied that there were seven and will only ever be seven sacraments.
Reply
#12
Doesn't Confirmation leave an indelible mark on the soul?
Reply
#13
Yes, as does Baptism and Holy Orders which is why they can't be repeated unless there be doubt over the validity of the first ones.
Reply
#14
Quote:Doesn't Confirmation leave an indelible mark on the soul?

It does, in western theological terms.

But what practical effect would that have for the way actions are preformed in the East vis a vis Christmation as Sacrament and other chrismations as sacramentals?

None as far as I can see. And, so, they arent too concerned by abstract things like that.
Reply
#15
SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON CONFIRMATON: "If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a sort of instruction, whereby those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith to the Church, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Confirmation, Canon 1).
 
All Catholics are bound to believe this.
Reply
#16
AnimaChristi Wrote:So every time an Eastern Orthodox commits a serious sin, he is re-chrismated? 

No. 
Reply
#17
Quote:All Catholics are bound to believe this.

And I dont see where anyone, or the Orthodox, are denying this, assuming an understanding of the word "true and proper sacrament".
Reply
#18
Quote: So every time an Eastern Orthodox commits a serious sin, he is re-chrismated?  What's the point of them having Confession? 

I think I misrepresented it.  Chrismation wouldn't be redone after every serious sin, but only for actual apostasy.  So everytime someone apostatized from the Orthodox Church, if they returned, they would be rechrismated.  But the principle is still the same, that you have kicked the Holy Spirit out of you, so that which gives you the Holy Spirit, chrismation, must be repeated.

Quote:  And, by the way, just because it was practiced before the "Great Schism" doesn't mean it is legitimate. 

This is true.  The fact that no Popes prior to the schism ever condemned the practice, though, does.  Or, it at least suggests legitimacy.

Quote: The East had many erroneous practices even before the schism and was always a hotbed of heterodoxy and rebellion 

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Heresy was no stranger to the West, either.  If you consider merely questioning the teachings or actions of the Pope to be heterodox and rebellious, then, yes, of course the East was a hotbed of heterodoxy and rebellion.
Reply
#19
Melkite Wrote:If you consider merely questioning the teachings or actions of the Pope to be heterodox and rebellious, then, yes, of course the East was a hotbed of heterodoxy and rebellion.

You seem to be (annoyingly, for a Catholic) 'proud' of the Byzantines rebelling against papal authority and Catholic defined dogma (not yet before 1054 and 1448 really, not officially). This is worrying.

The Byzantines had iconoclasm 800 years before Calvin arose in the West, and never were there Holy Roman Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation as heretics, never French Kings as heretics, yet the Eastern Roman Emperors or Byzantine Emperors sometimes fell into these heresies. (Monotheletism is another thing, but later on Pope Honorius I was blamed for that also and even stripped of his garments in his grave posthumously.)

Questioning the political actions of popes as secular rulers of the Patrimonium Petri (the Papal States) was never heterodoxy. No Latin ever stated this.

As for Chrismation repeated before 1054 by Eastern (Byzantine Rite) priests after each act of apostasy: this may have happened. There were constant problems and disputes with the Apostolic See of Rome on marriage theology too.

And the (Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic saint) Photius even had Latin churches's Blessed Sacrament in Constantinople desecrated by declaring the Latins' "Jewish bread" invalidating for the Most Holy Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Of course Venetian prostitutes and drunk alleged 'crusaders' in 1204 AD desecrated Constantinople's Byzantine churches. But they were excommunicated by the Pope of that era. (Photius repented later on, however.)

So there were grave sacrileges already then. The repetition of Christmation or Confirmation already validly administered, is a sacrilege.

No Melkite priest or bishop is allowed to do this. And they will not.

You cannot imitate the Eastern so-called Orthodox's heretical theology on Holy Matrimony and their 'ecclesiastical divorce' abuses either.
Reply
#20
Quote:You cannot imitate the Eastern so-called Orthodox's heretical theology on Holy Matrimony and their 'ecclesiastical divorce' abuses either.

That's likewise reducible to semantics, though.

They arent as legalistically concerned, as in the West, about investigating and establishing invalidity...and this can be open to abuse, certainly...but when they remarry, they have essentially been given an annulment by their bishop.

Now, they dont think of it or speak of it that way, and are much more "pastoral" and pragmatic about it...but it's essentially equivalent in terms of what's happening ecclesiastically.

Our two churches could easily recognize in each other's practices (annulment vs "ecclesiastical divorce") the same action with merely different emphases.

They'd have to merely pay a little lip-service to the theoretical idea that the first marriage, because of some defect, must not have been an indissoluble Sacrament strictly speaking in the first place. This preserves the theoretical indissolubility of marriage in people's minds, though the East is not as concerned with theory, being more pragmatic.

At the same time, we could perhaps recognize that the first marriage in such cases was at least a valid natural marriage that is, in fact, being dissolved in favor of a supernatural one. And that natural marriage may have even been a sacramental and the source of at least actual graces (similar to the rite for the natural marriage of a Catholic and a non-baptized person). As the Orthodox I've spoken too are uncomfortable with the notion that "nothing happened" at the first marriage when externally it obviously did.

But certainly in the first millenium there were no elaborate annulment tribunals and investigations even in the West. The bishop just pastorally looked over the case and usually gave one if the situation seemed bad enough to suggest invalidity.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)