Returning to Orthodoxy: re-chrismation?

[max higgs]

I am a convert of a little more than a year, but I seem to recall reading about a rite or ritual for Orthodox who have fallen away or who joined other churches and who wish to return to the Orthodox Church. I have friends who are in this category and they do not seem to be aware of this rite which is available to them. Can someone tell me where to find information about this practice and whether it is in use in the church? Far from rejecting this practice, I think my friends would welcome the clarification this ritual could bring to their lives. Thank you kindly. Of course I will refer them to our priest.

[R.J.G.]

That would only apply to people who "officially" converted to another religion, right?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Personally I have never dealt with a case of someone returning Orthodoxy so what I write below is only a general comment. In all such situations pastoral discretion and the advice of one's bishop is always crucial.

In the Russian Trebnik (Book of Needs) there are found 1)Service composed by Patriarch Methodius of Constantinople for the reception of various people that have denied Christ and are returning to the True & Orthodox Faith; & 2)Prayer for Cleansing those who have denied Christ and are returning to the true Faith.

What is very important to notice here are the words "those who have denied Christ"; ie these services are not simply for those who fell away from Orthodoxy to a Christian denomination. (The Russian Trebnik calls these 'confessions') Rather these services are for those who in their falling away from Orthodoxy have denied Christ.

That is why when you look at these services closely you notice the strict penance- fasting & prayer- imposed. But more importantly the fact that both services refer to anointing with the Holy Myrrh- which means that the sacrament of Chrismation is being repeated. So it seems that these services would apply to those who really have denied Christ in some radical way.

For those who were returning to Orthodoxy from another Christian confession one would think the sacrament of confession would be more appropriate.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Raphael,

Is not the mystirion of Holy Unction available during Holy Wednesday to even those that have denied Christ? Is it the same sacrament of as Chrismation? What's the relationship? I mention this because if a person who fell away or even denied Christ (there are degrees of that as you well know) the movement of returning to the Orthodox Church services on a regular basis fixes the situation. It seems to me that it is built in so to speak. Although, I suppose someone who truly denies Christ wouldn't even show up for Holy Unction. I think a good example for your friends Max is that Peter denied Christ thrice and repented. He went from the light to darkness and back. It seems to me that the keys to the kingdom of heaven are found in our hearts and minds and are always given freely within the Orthodox Church. As we know those keys, penance and absolution are in the hands of every Orthodox Priest. The slot that those keys are inserted into is a repenting heart. If the heart is hardened the keys don't work. I'm painting a very ancient Icon of Saint Peter I couldn't help but to notice that the keys hanging from his neck came to rest in a spot right over his heart. It must been originally painted way very intentionally as the keys wouldn't hang there if the obeyed the laws of gravity. I recently heard a very moving homily at an Orthodox wedding for a couple that I had never seen before in Church. In short form, the Priest told the couple (Orthodox by birth it seems) that they have asked to be married in the Church which is what happened, he continued on in almost a poetic way of mentioning to them what they must now do, embrace the Church as it has and always will embrace them if they are willing.

Here is a excerpt about Holy Wednesday.



On Holy Wednesday the Church invites the faithful to focus their attention on two figures: the sinful woman who anointed the head of Jesus shortly before the passion (Matthew 26:6-13), and Judas, the disciple who betrayed the Lord. The former acknowledged Jesus as Lord, while the latter severed himself from the Master. The one was set free, while the other became a slave. The one inherited the kingdom, while the other fell into perdition. These two people bring before us concerns and issues related to freedom, sin, hell and repentance.



The repentance of the sinful harlot is contrasted with the tragic fall of the chosen disciple. The Triodion make is clear that Judas perished, not simply because he betrayed his Master, but because, having fallen into the sin of betrayal, he then refused to believe in the possibility of forgiveness. If we deplore the actions of Judas, we do so not with vindictive self-righteousness but conscious always of our own guilt. In general, all the passages in the Triodion that seem to be directed against the Jews should be understood in this same way. When the Triodion denounces those who rejected Christ and delivered Him to death, we recognize that these words apply not only to others, but to ourselves: for have we not betrayed the Savior many times in our hearts and crucified Him anew?



"I have transgressed more than the harlot, O loving Lord, yet never have I offered You my flowing tears. But in silence I fall down before You and with love I kiss Your most pure feet, beseeching You as Master to grant me remission of sins; and I cry to You, O Savior: Deliver me from the filth of my works.



While the sinful woman brought oil of myrrh, the disciple came to an agreement with the transgressors. She rejoiced to pour out what was very precious, he made haste to sell the One who is above all price. She acknowledged Christ as Lord, he severed himself from the Master. She was set free, but Judas became the slave of the enemy. Grievous was his lack of love. Great was her repentance. Grant such repentance also unto me, O Savior who has suffered for our sake, and save us."

Hymns of the Orthros of Holy Wednesday


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Patrick Walsh]

I have a question in that has come to mind as a result of Father Raphael's explanation.

What does it mean to "deny Christ."

When I did not come to Church for several weeks shortly after I was baptized and chrismated, my spiritual father showed me a canon of the church. The canon basically said if you missed church a certain number of weeks, you were no longer in the church, and a ceremony (I believe it is the one being described in Fr. Raphael's discourse) would have to be performed to get back into the Church.

In essence, simply not coming to Church is denying Christ. It makes perfect sense because the Church is the body of Christ, and you have chosen instead to watch football, or sleep late or whatever.

Of course the canon only applies to those who are physically able to attend church.

Am I remembering something in error? It is very possible I misunderstood something my spiritual father was trying to explain to me, since this was very early in my life as an Orthodox Christian.

Thanks
Patrick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear brother in Christ Matthew,

You asked:


Is not the mystirion of Holy Unction available during Holy Wednesday to even those that have denied Christ? Is it the same sacrament of as Chrismation? What's the relationship?

As you say if a person had denied Christ it is unlikely a person would ever approach for Holy Unction anyway. Personally I would have strong reservations against allowing someone to be anointed who in some open & ongoing way was actually denying Christ. This is a bit different somehow from someone who is having doubts about the Faith or who fails to attend church due to some temptation. In any case since I think confession is technically required before Unction (although in today's circumstances it is often not enforced) and Unction is a sacrament of the Church then those being anointed should be Orthodox. This is different however from anointing with holy oil in general- then the person does not need to be Orthodox. And although there is no clear-cut practice about this many also allow anointing of the non-Orthodox with the oil from Litya.

About Unction & Chrismation: the first is the Church's sacrament of healing while the latter is an essential part of how we are sacramentally brought into Christ's Church through the Holy Spirit- this is why when a person is baptised this is always immediately followed by Chrismation.

One can also see the distinction in that Chrism is only made by the bishops of an autocephalous church in a special ceremony & then distributed through the priests to the rest of the Church. In other words even in the way that Chrism is uniquely prepared there is a sign of how this sacrament strengthens the unity of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Patrick,

In response to your post above about "denying Christ".

This is why pastoral discretion is always very important and there is rarely only one way of doing things. This is because we respond to the actual person before us and their circumstances.

On the other hand the various services & sacraments of the Church are like vehicles in which we try to discern their various uses in leading people towards salvation.
Then we try to match person and service.

Specifically about the two services I referred to in the Trebnik. Looking at the rubrics and services it seems that a real conscious denial of Christ is involved- not 'just' sin which of course is always in some way a separation or even a separation to another Christian confession. On the other hand it could be that due to personal circumstances the priest may feel that this is the proper service to use.

My question however is whether or in what circumstances it is proper to use Holy Chrism for someone who already has been Chrismated before this? This is a genuine and not a challenging question.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[R.J.G.]

Or what if you were baptised Orthodox as an infant, but your parents didn't take you to church when you were a kid?

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Raphael,

It interesting that you mentioned the circumstances when it is proper to use Holy Chrism, insofar as it is the gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit. Since anointing with chrism is the seal of the mystery of baptism into Christ and having put on Christ I would think re-chrismation would only be necessary if one moved into the realm sparklessness. Of course that realm of sparklessness would not exist for any person who sought to return to the Orthodox Church, hence it seems to me the seal is permanently applied. Perhaps if a person died in a state of outright rejection of Christ then that seal received at baptism is broken by death in life and death in death. The Christ centered triumphant hymns of Paschal conquering death by death would can not be part of the being of such a soul. The wise thief looked to Christ and His life while acknowledging his own his own failings. The other spoke to Christ as well but much differently and in a similar way that all those who reject Christ mimic in one way or another. As such when we read of some of the Fathers whose tones may be thought of as harsh invectives against those in heresy those comments are not passion serving but rather strongly Christ centered insofar as they must have understood the effects that heresy can have on individual souls.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Raphael,

After giving the matter a bit more thought it really is as you have mentioned an individual basis and circumstances matter to be determined by the Priest or Bishop.

I'm going to get back to painting, it's easier for me to understand where and when to apply the paint.


Have a good day.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

My question however is whether or in what circumstances it is proper to use Holy Chrism for someone who already has been Chrismated before this? This is a genuine and not a challenging question.

Dear friends,

according to Notes of the Canon 11, of The First Ecumenical Council:

"The present-day custom of the Church treats faith-deniers for the most part considerately, in accordance with the formulation of Methodius of Constantinople. On this basis, if anyone was made a captive when a child, and as a result of fear or ignorance he denied the faith, when once he has returned thereto, after listening to the usual propitiatory prayers for seven days, on the eighth day he is bathed, and is anointed with Holy Chrism, and thus he partakes of communion, remaining thereafter in the church for eight days, and listening every day to the sacred liturgies and services. But if he was an adult and denied the faith after being tortured, in this case he is obliged to fast first for a period of twice forty days, abstaining from meat, and cheese, and eggs, and on three days in the week (namely, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) abstaining from oil and wine. (Notice that the fast of Wednesday and Friday which is obligatory on all Christians was given to this person as a canon by way of philanthropy and clemency). For seven days he listens to the same prayers, and thus he too is bathed, like the one above, and is anointed, and communes. If, on the other hand, he willingly went and denied the faith, he too has to fast for two years in identically the same manner as the one above fasted, and, according to his ability, he must make one hundred or two hundred genuflexions thereafter he also listens to the propitiatory prayers, and is bathed, and receives the other treatments, like the ones above. (Blastaris, in his synopsis of the Canons of the Faster; and Armenopoulos, Section 5, Heading 4, of his Epitome of the Canons. See also this formulation in the Euchologium, where these prayers are to be found).

Fr Raphael Vereshack, and friends, you can find a full explanation of the 11th Canon in the following web site (http://jbburnett.com/resources/canons/1can/1can11.html). I also submit this page as an attached document.

The Canon 11, may seem too disciplinarian, but we must not forget that all Canons are impemented with tolerance and allow the shortening of long periods by the Bishop, according to providence of the Holy Spirit.

The "bathing" and the "anointment" with Holy Chrism must not be confused with the Holy Baptism and the Holy Chrismation.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks for the information Leandros. It turns out that the rubric in Slavonic is taken word for word from Blastaris which is interesting.

One thing however- I'm not sure what you mean by, "the "anointment" with Holy Chrism must not be confused with ...the Holy Chrismation."

The rubric both above and in the Slavonic refer to "Holy Chrism." Moreover in the Slavonic the rubric for anointing says that the person is anointed with the Chrism as at the order of Baptism on the brow, eyes, etc and with the words, "the gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit". From this it does seem that whereas it is strictly forbidden for Baptism to be repeated Chrismating may.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Above that should be "the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit".

[Tim Grass]

Chrismation can be... and is... prescribed to be repeated for the lapsed. The anointment talked about in the canon above _is_ chrismation.

--tim

[Tim Grass]

Sorry... I now see that Fr. Raphael already said that. I'm still getting used to this email by reply thing.

--tim

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

It turns out that the rubric in Slavonic is taken word for word from Blastaris which is interesting

Matthew Blastaris (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14394a.htm), who was a hieromonk, who lived in 13th century, with Theodore Balsamon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02226b.htm) (12th century), Alexios Aristenus and John Zonaras (http://www.synaxis.info/apostol/church_law/articles/zonaras.html), were famous canonists (Orthodox canon law commentators) from Byzantine/Roman Empire and their work is part of the Orthodox heritage of the Church. Blastaris compliled the “Syntagma” which means “Constitution”. The complete title ls: The Syntagma kata stoicheion ("Alphabetical collection of canons") is a Byzantine canon and civil law code and it was compiled in 1335.

Dear Fr Raphael Vereshack , you can find a simple explanation on how the work of Blastaris made it to Slavic people in this article. (http://cmrs.osu.edu/rcmss/Newsletter/CMHv11/CMHv11p05.htm)


One thing however- I'm not sure what you mean by, "the "anointment" with Holy Chrism must not be confused with ...the Holy Chrismation."

Holy Chrismation, is the sacrament that immediately follows the sacrament of Holy Baptism. The Holy Spirit is “offered” by the Holy Chrismation. The spirit is not given by the Baptism, but it is offered by the Chrismation. The Baptism is giving us the sanctification and the efficiency to accept the Chrismation and through Chrismation to accept the Spirit. In (Acts 8:5-21) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%208:5-21;&version=50;) is presented that St Philip, one of the deacons (not the Apostle), went from Jerusalem to Samaria and preached the Gospel, and many believed and were baptized. Afterwards, Apostles St Peter and St John went to Samaria and found the baptised and “prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus”. “And as they placed their hands on them, they received the Holy Spirit”. This “placement of hands” is the visual manifestation of the sacrament of Chrismation. In the following years, as Christians were growing in numbers, the Apostles and the appointed Bishops were not in position to “place their hands” on every Christian immediately after the sacrament of Baptism because Christianity spread all over the world. So, the Church in Her early years, designated the “placement of the hands” to be performed by the anointment of Holy Chrism. This is an imitation of the biblical anointment in the Old Testament, where the kings, prophets and high priests were anointed with myrrh/unction. The baptized Christian is anointed with the Holy Myrrh and becomes, by grace, king, priest and prophet. As a king, he rules over his passions and over his fallen nature by the power of the Holy Spirit. As a priest, he offers himself and his devotion and his obedience to the Lord. And as a prophet, he proclaims to the world the Word of God.

The council of Carthagen(258 AD), decreed “the baptised should be anointed, so that in receiving the Chrism, to partake in Christ”. The same council also proclaimed that: “a heretic is not able to ask for sanctification of oil”, only those who have orthodox life can perform the ritual of sanctification of oil. Also, the synod of Laodicia (360 AD) presented the anointment with the “Holy Chrism”. Also, St Cyril Of Jerusalem (312-386 AD) in his catechetic homilies says: “On the one hand, in a visual way, the body is anointed with myrrh, and at the same time the soul is sanctified by the Holy and Life giving Spirit. First you are anointed at the forehead…, then at the ears …, then at the smell …, then at the chest…. After being blessed by this Holy Chrism you merit to be called Christians”.

The myrrh, (holy Chrism) is also used in other situations by the Church:

Seventh Ecumenical Council, Canon 7 (http://jbburnett.com/resources/canons/7can/7can07.html):
The relics of martyrs are deposited in the following fashion, according to the ordinance of the old Euchologion. After the ceremony of consecration, or, in other words, of enthroning the temple, the bishop takes three portions of relics of martyrs, and, having put them in a case and having poured holy chrism over them, he shuts the case.

The First Ecumenical Council, Canon 11: in the case of a returning orthodox, who had previously denied the Christian faith.

Immediately after Baptism, the anointment with the Holy Myrrh is the Sacrament of Holy Chrismation. It is like the proclamation of a king in his throne. Through Chrismation the baptised Christian assumes the spiritual royalty (and preisthood and prophethood) from the Holy Spirit. This gift is never removed from the anointed person. Just like a king never looses his royalty after his enthronement/coronation.

When a king renounces his royalty and after some time returns and reassumes his office back, then, he is not re-proclaimed king, because a king is always a king and his royalty is ontologically attached to him. A king is reinstated with a similar ceremony as the first one, in which he was offered the kingship, but the ceremony of reinstallation is not a ceremony of anointment in kingship but a ceremony of restoration: to put the king in his natural place. The original ceremony of “chrismation” of a king is his proclamation to a new ontological way of being. A man who was not a king before the chrismation, is a king afterwards. At the ceremony of restoration of a king, a man who was a king before restoration, but was not acting/living his kingship, is put in his natural place according to his royalty so that he may perform the proper life of his kingship.

(Also, even a dead king holds his royal anointment, as an ontological realization in his flesh, and in this context the relics of martyrs are poured Holy Chrism over them.)

Likewise, a person that is baptized in Christ is anointed, immediately afterwards, in royal priesthood through Chrismation by the Holy Spirit. This is a ONE time performed sacrament, just like the Holy Baptism. If it was to be repeated again it would be like anointing a king multiple times, which is absurd.

But when a person rejects Christ after his baptism and chrismation, the received royal priesthood is not taken away, but it is not exercised through him, though it is present in this person ontologically solid and stable. In case this person returns in Christ, he is restored in his rightful position with the same Holy Chrism than once made him royal priest, even remaining inactive in his denial of Christ.

So, the first Chrismation is like putting on the royal armor and like giving the royal seal for the first time to a person that is not a King but through Chrismation is assuming Kingship, becoming afterwards what was not before Chrismation, by the grace of the Spirit. In this context, the Holy Chrismation is changing ontologically the chrismated baptised Christian and at the same time it puts him in his proper royal position.

The anointment with Chrism of a repentant former denier of Christ after his first Chrismation, is like putting on the royal armor and like giving the royal seal to a person that is already a king, restoring him in his proper position, though it is not an ontological re-anointment (this had already done once in the first Chrismation).

The Holy Chrism/Myrrh is the visual manifestation of the energies of the Spirit, Who acts in many ways. These energies are embracing the whole existence of man, body and soul, personhood and everything that human being is.

May the Holy Spirit bless us, all.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Leandros,

You are confusing a number of things here. Mainly the interpretive and theoretical with actual pastoral practice. Following in this way I suppose that one could make the argument that because we have been baptised we should never receive the sacrament of confession again afterwards.

What we should do is go the other way around. Start with the actual pastoral practice of the Church and then try to place this within an Orthodox theological context.

The specific point of the service we are talking about is that obviously the Chrismation is being repeated. (Again- at least in the Slavonic this is made very clear). So seeing this is so we need to ask ourselves why? I won't pretend to make a complete explanation but obviously this must imply that the person's actions were a major rejection of the Holy Spirit. This explanation would connect directly to the fact that the service in its opening description refers to those who have denied Christ (ie the rubrics imply something more serious than heresy or schism). Therefore using pastoral discretion these two services seem directed at those who have had an extremely serious fall in regards to the Faith.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Snipped from the above, a few quotations:


The original ceremony of "chrismation" of a king is his proclamation to a new ontological way of being. [...]

But when a person rejects Christ after his baptism and chrismation, the received royal priesthood is not taken away, but it is not exercised through him, though it is present in this person ontologically solid and stable. [...]

In this context, the Holy Chrismation is changing ontologically the chrismated baptised Christian and at the same time it puts him in his proper royal position.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here of the terminology and concept of 'ontological' in the nature of the mysteries of the Church. Chrismation does not represent an ontological change; the fathers are eminently clear that an ousia is an ousia. In the natural realm, even when sanctified by divine union, ousiai do not change (ontological change), nor do ontological 'ways of being' (which is slightly oxymoronic: changing ontological hypostatisation). What changes is the way our nature (ousia) exists in relation to God. Neither baptism nor chrismation ontologically change a person; these mysteries initiate the human nature into realised communion with and participation in the divine.

INXC, Matthew

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Dr M.C.Steenberg,

in the respective message (No 297) the term "ontological" is not used in specifying the "essense"/ousia, in an existential manner, but in specifying "with whom is the hypostasis of the essense related", in personal manner.

Thank you for your remark.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Bless, Fr Raphael Vereshack,

I certainly had not support that "because we have been baptised we should never receive the sacrament of confession again afterwards". I feel that I have to clarify this.

But let me, father, ask you a simple question: what is the pastoral difference between a baptised and chrismated person who denied Christ (an Orthodox denier) and then repents and returns to faith, and a baptised non-chrismated person who denied Christ (a Catholic denier who was not chrismated) and then wants to join Orthodoxy.

I ask this because, our faith is not based in a membership by registration, but a in membership by incorporation/embodiment. And then, is it possible to join and disjoin at will?

Bless father.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Leandros, you wrote:


in the respective message (No 297) the term "ontological" is not used in specifying the "essense"/ousia, in an existential manner, but in specifying "with whom is the hypostasis of the essense related", in personal manner.

Then here we must not use the term 'ontological', which does not mean this (and is very misleading when applied in this manner). But then, speaking of the 'hypostasis of the essence' is precisely existential, so there is again confusion.

The basic point here (somewhat confused by the lingo, perhaps) is that human natural reality is not altered in the mysteries of the Church. The human nature of the human person undergoing baptism or chrismation remains the same nature as before entering into that sacrament. The mystery is not of an ontological change, but of an entrance into the transfiguring relationship with the divine. As such, it becomes inappropriate to speak of an 'ontological anointing' or 'changing ontologically the chrismated baptised Christian'. This kind of language is dangerous because it tends to foster false visions of what the human person is in relation to the sacramental mysteries of the Church, rooted in a kind of language of 'being in/as relation' that fails to account for an authentic Christian anthropology.

Fr Raphael's point in his post, above, was to show that the rubrics clearly do allow for (and in fact explicitly demand) that chrismation be 'repeated' in the kind of situation described. The arguments founded on the kind of 'ontological' language argued earlier lead to conclusions that go against the pastoral practice of the Church. It is in precisely such situations that specific philosophical models must be held to question and account in the light of actual Christian practice.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Leandros,
You asked:


what is the pastoral difference between a baptised and chrismated person who denied Christ (an Orthodox denier) and then repents and returns to faith, and a baptised non-chrismated person who denied Christ (a Catholic denier who was not chrismated) and then wants to join Orthodoxy.

In the first case one could use the service we have referred to "for those who have denied Christ." In the second case -according to pastoral practice- one would be received by either baptism & chrismation or by chrismation alone.

The first situation is someone who has consciously rejected Christ within the fullness of the Church and then seeks return in repentance. The chrismation is a sort of restoration but the rest of the service shows that the context is also that this is preceded by a real depth of repentance.

The second situation however is different even though you mention denial of Christ. Denial of Christ is not generic as if this was the same situation both within & outside of the Church. In any case those coming to the Church are received not only sacramentally but also pastorally; the way in which the person is received corresponds in a total way to the actual circumstances of the person involved.

A brief comment here if I have been following correctly your posts in the past while. I think the situation we are discussing here is just one example that shows the weakness of a relational spirituality for the starting point is psychological rather than the Church as the Body of Christ. By doing this we are in danger of replacing membership within the Church as defined by Christ with something that is almost individually defined & thus in further danger of becoming arbitrary. This shows us that discussions within the Church should not just reflect 'differing viewpoints' but rather there is a specific theological way in which we seek to attain truth within the Church. Crucially differing viewpoints within the Church complement each other in truth- they do not oppose each other.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[A.Z.]

Dear All,

The Meaning of the 7th article of the Second Ecumenical Council for those returning to the Church is as following:

Criteria for all of the church life (anathemism, baptism, restoring = unity....). is pure orthodox faith in the Holy Trinity.

This is also a criterium for rejoining to the Church.

Beside others reasons, that is why this Councils had proclaimed The Orthodox Credo. The real proof of the true faith was also very important to the Emperor policy about heretics.

The council proclaims two different types of heretics.

1. For the firs one it is sufficient to give proclamation of true faith - libellus fidei, to put an anathema on their previous belief, and to receive the Holy Spirit once again in the Chrismation.

2. The second group of heretics need to be baptized again, because this heretics with their praxis of wrong baptism, or non-orthodox trinitarian dogmatic, do not fully believe in one usia of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion.

a) If a certain man has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and The Holy Spirit, he does not have to be baptized again, but need to receive chrismation in his rejoining the Church.

b) If a certain man has not been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and The Holy Spirit, he is not orthodox at all, and need to be baptized like a nonchristian.

The criterion for reentering is The Holy Trinity.



Second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople, 381
Canon VII

Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians-these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. As we seal them we say: "Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit". But Eunomians, who are baptised in a single immersion, Montanists (called Phrygians here), Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son and make certain other difficulties, and all other sects -- since there are many here, not least those who originate in the country of the Galatians -- we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do Greeks. On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we = baptise them.

Zavulon

(Message edited by zavulon on 27 September, 2005)

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Dr M.C. Steenberg,

Of course you are right, and I am not answering in order to disproof your statements.

The terms ontology as ousia and the 'hypostasis of the essence' as existential and the repetition of Holy Chrismation are right in the way that you present your life with God. It seems that I do not use the same terminology, and I try to read in your messages what is the differences between our lives, if there is any, while making no predictions about you. Please, do not label my heart with foretold arguments of other people.

From my personal point of view, as I experience the Life of Church, the energies of God are not done in the first place and then become undone. (I am not turning away from the issues of “ontology” and “hypostasis” but by presenting the non repetitive way of Holy Chrismation, I think that these terms will also be presented).

St Cyril of Jerusalem, in His Catechetical Lectures (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xxv.html) presents what the Holy Chrismation is. He says : <font face="courier new&#44;courier">“Which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.
…
Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians, verifying the name also by your new birth. For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had properly no right to this title, but were advancing on your way towards being Christians”.</font>

If ontological change is not happening in Chrismation then why St Cyril did gave these explanations? To say that “The human nature of the human person undergoing baptism or chrismation remains the same nature as before entering into that sacrament” then the anointment is either purely symbolic or at most it is a mean that uses the body as a channel to get through to reach its goal, but the Holy Chrism should not affect the unchangeable ontological human/essence, which is assumed to be identical to itself as before chrismation or baptism.

If we would read literally St Cyril’s teaching that: “Which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit” we would say that “the human nature…remains the same nature…the mystery is an entrance into the transfiguring relationship with the divine”, but then who/what is “entering into the transfiguring relationship with the divine”. If an ontological change is not valid in baptism and in chrismation then the human being should be taken apart, and partly to be transfigured and partly to remain unchanged in essence.

I think that the main issue in our discussion is that you use the word “change” differently than I do. I think that our differences are not in the definition of “ontology” but in the word “change”. If I understand your messages well, you assume that “change” is a structural modification/alteration of the essence in itself. To say that the nature/essence remains ontologically unchanged is like saying that the human being is transfigured taken into a different “environment”. It is like an external change/transfiguration which is existentially or personally realized as otherness.

When I use the word “change” I mean an alteration of the structural relations of the essence with God. In this context, the water, the carbon and all other structural elements of the human body and the simple essence of the soul are not changing in their natural structure in themselves and yet they are changing because according to St Cyril: “For this holy thing &#40;the Chrism&#41; is a spiritual safeguard of the body and salvation of the soul”, which is an ontological alteration of the essence from within, compared to the former position. The environment, the external existential or personal realization is not changed, but self is changed from within in the ontological oneness of being, including essential change, in relation with God.

How then, this alteration is assumed as undone and restored at will?

PS: I understand that the anointment of Chrism is performed twice in the case of a repenter, former denier of Christ, but the ontological alteration which is performed in the first anointment is not abolished, ever. Let me say that in an analogy, it is like the blessed “taste” of Christ that a person in faith might get in Holy Communion that is never abolished, even if this person afterwards falls in sin and denies Christ for ever. In eternity this person will carry in him the blessed “taste” of Christ.

I hope this message will help you, in our common effort to understand each other’s life in Christ.

May God bless us,all.

&#40;Message edited by lpap on 28 September, 2005&#41;

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Leandros,

Your most recent post in this thread raises some good questions. But it also goes further to show some very different conceptions at play.

(Before getting to some of those however, a brief comment on the notion that presentations are made in this conversations 'in the way that you present your life with God'. Our own experiences of course colour all that we say and do, but for the most part this forum is not for the expression of personal thoughts, etc, but for seeking after the thought of the fathers - how they present life with God. I say this merely as a 'general disclaimer'.)

In the kind of discussion that this has evolved into, terminology has to be used extremely carefully. Fathers fought long, hard fights over the meaning and usage of particular terms; it is not our business to alter their meanings. This is particularly the case with terms like ousia, ontological, essence, and the like. For example:


From my personal point of view, as I experience the Life of Church, the energies of God are not done in the first place and then become undone.

While it seems to me very likely that this is not what you meant, it is worth being absolutely explicit (given the focus of this thread) that the sacramental mysteries of the Church are not energies of God. They are effected by God's energies, and bring encounter with those energies, but themselves are mysteries - rites of the Church. This has direct bearing on the point of your discussion: it is true to say that God does not act one way and then another, or act and then 'un-act'; but this is not the question in the matter under address. What God effects in the sacramental mysteries is effected in and for the life of a freely-determining human creature. Were it merely and only the act of God that had abiding presence in the sacrament, then no one would sin after baptism - which I know you as I readily admit is not reality. This relates to the quote of St Cyril of Jerusalem that you brought up in a few of your recent posts:


Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians, verifying the name also by your new birth. For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had properly no right to this title, but were advancing on your way towards being Christians”.

It is clear that God acts in baptism. The whole scope of Cyril's 23 catechetical lectures is preparation for this sacrament, and he is one of the most thorough writers of the early period on its full meaning and significance. But it's a little too tidy to centre too much on a single passage referring to the 'title' (as Cyril calls it) of Christian, enabled in a person by baptism. Tertullian had earlier made a similar point ('men are made, not born, Christians'), and Cyril raises it as a matter of dignity and responsibility. But he also speaks at length about the ability to lapse from this high calling and title.

All this is tied into the question of 'change'. You raised the connection explicitly:


If ontological change is not happening in Chrismation then why St Cyril did gave these explanations?

The short answer is because Cyril is in fact speaking of a kind of mystical participation through the symbolic (in the strong sense of that term) - an idea that becomes most clear when he talks of baptism as joining us to the suffering of Christ, of which we mystically have a participatory share (see Cyril's Mystagogics (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/cyriljerusalem/mystagogics.shtml), especially number two (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/cyriljerusalem/myst_2.shtml)). It is not (and in fact, for Cyril it is explicitly not) a matter of ontological transformation. This is perhaps the area of the most confusion:


I think that the main issue in our discussion is that you use the word “change” differently than I do. I think that our differences are not in the definition of “ontology” but in the word “change” [...] When I use the word “change” I mean an alteration of the structural relations of the essence with God. In this context, the water, the carbon and all other structural elements of the human body and the simple essence of the soul are not changing in their natural structure in themselves and yet they are changing because according to St Cyril: “For this holy thing (the Chrism) is a spiritual safeguard of the body and salvation of the soul”, which is an ontological alteration of the essence from within, compared to the former position. The environment, the external existential or personal realization is not changed, but self is changed from within in the ontological oneness of being, including essential change, in relation with God.

Differing meanings of 'change' are fair enough; but the conflict on this term only has bearing in relation to the term 'ontological', which is really where the distinction lies. Change as transformation/alteration is not a problematic concept with respect to existence/hypostasis; it happens all the time, and is the very point of a transfigured life. Such transforming change of ousia, which is what 'ontological' always means (we cannot simply decide it means something else) is an absolute impossibility. The whole understanding of theosis is built on the principle that ontological change never takes place in a human person.

What it seems that you want to say (based on my reading of your posts, which reading of course may be in error) is that relation is altered in the mysteries; that it is our being's (ousia's) relation to God that is mystically changed in the sacramental act. This is what many of the fathers would say. But to try to describe this as an 'ontological change', even in the sense that you've qualified it in your above comments, is something the fathers never do -- and in fact something that poses serious problems on reflection. It tends to ground the mystery in some sort of change (however defined) at the level of natural reality (the ousia), rather than centring the mystery wholly in the relational encounter, which truly does 'ontologize' it in a way not found in the tradition. It poses a serious risk to an appreciation for the dynamic character of encounter as two-way: effect by both 'parties' - God and the human person, and tends toward a kind of root finality to the mystery that goes to the very heart of this thread (i.e. that chrismation might not be repeated).

INXC, Matthew

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear, Dr M.C. Steenberg,

Thank you for the reference of Cyril&#39;s Mystagogics. Let me quote a paragraph, from part two:

&#34;5. O strange and inconceivable thing! we did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again; but our imitation was in a figure, and our salvation in reality. Christ was actually crucified, and actually buried, and truly rose again; and all these things He has freely bestowed upon us, that we, sharing His sufferings by imitation, might gain salvation in reality. O surpassing loving-kindness! Christ received nails in His undefiled hands and feet, and suffered anguish; while on me without pain or toil by the fellowship of His suffering He freely bestows salvation&#34;

This is exactly my point.

St Athanasius, also, &#34;On the Incarnation of the Word&#34; (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/athanasius/di_plain_1-26.shtml) - &#40;Chapter 4 - Chapter 10&#41;, is presenting the same point: &#34;And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father-doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone &#40;inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord&#39;s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers&#41;, and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire.&#34;

Is it false to say, in this context, that in these passages is presented an ontological change? By &#39;change&#39; I mean, the difference of ontology &#34;in sharing His sufferings by imitation, gaining salvation in reality&#34;, compared to ontology in the pre-imitation period. As I interpret the passage by St Cyril, the words &#34;in reality&#34; refer to this ontological change. Also the words of St Athanasius, “might turn them again toward incorruption” express the same thing. The &#34;mystical participation through the symbolic&#34; is not saving the ontological change from happening. The aftermath of imitation is actualized &#34;in reality&#34;, but the reality is not produced by the imitation.

So, the ontology of a creature is always ontology of a creature, as St Athanasius says: &#34;men became involved in that corruption which was their nature&#34;. Yet in Christ, in His Body, &#34;the corruptible is brought to incorruption” and ontology is not excluded.

By &#39;change&#39; I do not mean a process, nor an action, nor a transformation, nor a transmutation &#40;I say this because I feel that my messages are being perceived in this context&#41;.

In an analogy, a chair is ontologically a chair in itself, but only after the first person had sat on it, then, it changes ontologically into a chair in reality. Afterwards, every person who is imitating the sitting on the original substantial ontologically changed chair, which was performed by the first person, is also introduced in the changed ontology of the chair in reality, thus he is in his turn changed ontologically into a sitter, which is not his accomplishment.

May God bless us, all.

&#40;Message edited by lpap on 28 September, 2005&#41;

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Leandros (please call me Matthew),

In your last post, you asked:


Is it false to say, in this context, that in these passages is presented an ontological change?

Yes, I think it is. It seems grounded in a deep-rooted misunderstanding (or at least misuse) of the term 'ontology/ontological'. Indeed, Cyril's whole line of articulation, vis-a-vis coming to gain salvation 'in reality' by participation 'through imitation', stands to this effect.

I think this is most clearly bound up in the analogy you presented:


In an analogy, a chair is ontologically a chair in itself, but only after the first person had sat on it, then, it changes ontologically into a chair in reality. Afterwards, every person who is imitating the sitting on the original substantial ontologically changed chair, which was performed by the first person, is also introduced in the changed ontology of the chair in reality, thus he is in his turn changed ontologically into a sitter, which is not his accomplishment.

This is not ontological change of any sort. An argument could be made for existential change, but even that really isn't apparent in this analogy; what is analogised is a change in function or usage.

As before, I don't believe the conflict here is really over readings of the term 'change', but over the matter of ontology. What you are speaking of, in some sense, is (not in the chair analogy, but the larger discussion) a kind of hypostatic change, but would need some refinement in that regard.

INXC, Matthew

[Father David Moser]

I would like to go back to the original question regarding a rite for the return of those who have left the Orthodox faith and joined themselves to some other confession or religion. Without getting into the chrismation/annointing issue, let me also refer to the service book of the Russian Church. There are certain prescribed &#34;renunciations&#34; by which members of heterodox Christian confessions are received into the Church. A person who was once Orthodox and who is returning to the Church from such a situation can be received in the same manner - by their confession of faith &#40;renunciations&#41; and then the absolution of the sacrament of Confession. A &#34;penance&#34; may or may not be imposed by the priest as indicated by the pastoral situation.

The return of the penitent through the sacrament of confession is the norm in such situations. Any other action normally requires the intervention and approval of the ruling diocesan bishop.

Archpriest David Moser