Infant baptism and chrismation

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

My Protestant (Lutheran) nephew is about to be confirmed. I recently heard the old rationalisation that it "makes more sense" for an older child to be confirmed at age 14, when he or she can actually make up their own minds and make a conscious commitment to God, rather than receiving chrismation immediately after Baptism as is the Orthodox practice.

I am wondering how to respond to these comments. It seems to me - correct me if I'm wrong - that infant baptism is both a release from the effects of original sin and a recognition of preverbal personhood, but what about chrismation? Why chrismate the infant, and not wait until the child is old enough to be "confirmed"?

ICXC
Byron

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Byron:

Remember that St. Paul says that as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. We want our children to be clothed in Christ. We want them not to be slaves to sin, but to be clothed in Christ. Furthermore, children are chrismated, as are convert adults, for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Why would we clothe a child in Christ yet deny them the Holy Spirit?

There are a couple of practical aspects involved in this as well. The first is that without being chrismated, one is not allowed to commune. Again, we must ask why would we not allow children to commune with Christ when He specifically forbid keeping the 'little ones' away from Him?

Finally, it does not 'make sense' to wait until a child can make a decision for himself. This is not only theologically incorrect; it is also bad parenting. EVERY parent teaches a child their values from the first day they are born, both in word and in deed. This is a DUTY of every parent, not an option. To those who think that it 'makes more sense' to wait until a certain 'age of accountablity' we would ask why we should teach a child that being selfish is wrong rather than letting them 'make up their own mind.' In fact, why even bother taking them to church? We should just wait until they can make up their own mind!!! I think when the argument is framed this way, we see more clearly how incorrect this argument really is.

Forgive.

Aaron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

You wrote, "a recognition of preverbal personhood" which I think is a wonderful way of putting it. In an Orthodox understanding from the first moment of conception a human person is made in the image & likeness of God. As such it needs God's grace & guidance so as to grow both physically & spiritually. And this is so before the child can conceptualise about this. I was told about this question-"just as we would not deprive a child of physical food before they can understand intellectually what food is- so we would not deprive the child of the Body & Blood of Christ." I suppose from here we could state that the means of entering into this life in the Church should not be deprived the child.
I want to add as a priest that it is quite striking how little babies & infants respond to the Cup when their parents bring them from the earliest moments after their baptism. Often they receive in the most peaceful & way some with smiles on their little faces. On the other hand you should see how a child reacts when their parents rarely come to church & only bring their child to the Cup once in awhile. How these children roar & wave their arms- some have the most dreadful looks on their faces. How instructive to parents to raise their children by having them always within the grace filled arms of the Church. Beyond our human understanding, infants definitely feel the grace of Christ within the Church and respond positively to this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael and Aaron,

Thank you both for your input. Is that a fact, that a person may not receive holy communion until they have been chrismated (Fr Raphael?)? If that is so, to me it makes obvious sense then why Orthodox parents do not expose their children to so many years without holy communion. Perhaps it's different in non-Orthodox denominations, where holy communion is not necessarily understood as the Body and Blood of our Saviour. Whatever the circumstances of our upbringing, I trust that God has the power to show a sincere seeker the right path.

ICXC
Byron

[Kevin Teo]

Actually, Byron, holy communion is barred from the non-baptised adults and the children who have not been confirmed in my church,of a Presbyterian background. It is not so much an issue of whether it is the Body and Blood of the Lord(Presbyterians believe in the Communion as symbols of the Lord's broken body but at the same time, we use the word 'sacraments' as opposed to 'ordinances' because we do believe that it is a 'foretaste' of heaven), as more so that the judgement of the Lord is upon those who are not 'ready' to take the elements of communion, that is, mainly nonbelievers, catechumens, and so on.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

In the case of an adult they may only receive the Eucharist upon being received sacramentally into the Church through either Baptism or Chrismation. (In very rare cases this is achieved through a simple confession of Faith)

An newly-born infant only receives the Eucharist after having been baptized.

In other words the reception of the Body & Blood of Christ is an inseperable aspect of having become a member of the Body of Christ ie the Church.

Theologically speaking this means that all of our life as Christians becomes ecclesiological, ie lived within the Body of Christ. Seen through Orthodox eyes being Christian & a life outside the sacramental Body of Christ- the Church- is a contradiction in terms.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I should clarify about the reception of infants. I was assuming that we were talking about a newly-born infant of Orthodox parents. In this case the infant would need to be baptised before receiving the Eucharist.

If parents however were coming to the Orthodox Church as converts who also had an infant child, normally the child would be sacramentally brought into the Church in whatever way the parents were. This is another example of how the Orthodox Church relates the sacramental life to both infants & adults generally in the same way. The one exception to this is of course Confession where the child must first be able to understand what confession means & express this in words. For this reason one often finds that children are first brought to confession at age 7. The canons however say that when the child understands what sin is, at whatever age, they should be urged to go to confession. In many cases this more ancient tradition of the Orthodox Church is coming back into practice.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[nurse-aid]

Glory to the Mighty who born me out dust! To life… to live in Christ!
Glory to the Mighty Light who shows me way! In all my trials, day by day!
Glory to the Mighty strength which I was given, bleeding, but sustained!
Glory to the Mighty to guide my way, over the fears, over the fames to stillness flame!
Glory to the Mighty for love which gives me wings! To fly up high, forgive myself in sins!
Glory to the Mighty for peace which gives me life, to live anew, to open widely eyes!
Glory to the Mighty for love and care of those…Who sends by Him, who let me grew like as tiny rose!
Glory to Mighty for others who are sick! To see their pain, to ask HIM to forgive!
Glory to the Mighty for Loves me as I’m, to die for me and for the chance be New, new me!
Glory to the Mighty that makes me be HIS son…How can it be my Lord? It is beyond my psalm!

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you for the clarifications re baptism and the Eucharist, Fr Raphael. It is clear that one has to have been baptised to be able to receive Holy Communion (unless, if I understand you correctly, in the extreme case where an adult may be able to do so after a profession of faith - by the way, what case might that be?). But does one need to have been also chrismated? Is Aaron correct in stating that


without being chrismated, one is not allowed to commune. Again, we must ask why would we not allow children to commune with Christ when He specifically forbid keeping the 'little ones' away from Him?

If Aaron is correct, this seems to me a practical way of explaining to non-Orthodox why we do not wait until the child is a teenager before chrismation / confirmation.

Fr Raphael, your tips on confession for children are useful - I have two daughters, aged 2 and 3, and can just about get them to understand by themselves when they are being naughty (actually surprisingly rarely), leave alone begin to talk to them about the concept of sin! They both seem fascinated however, particularly my younger daughter, by the image of the "bad dragon" whom St George is slaying in one of our household icons. I keep explaining to them that the dragon was bad, and frightened people, and that is why St George killed him. I wonder when they might be able to understand that St George and the dragon is also a representation of good over evil. Psychologists like Piaget and Kohlberg would probably agree with you, that around age 6-7 the child is ready to begin moral reasoning for confession, although of course the process of moral development begins already much sooner; but a real concept of 'sin' probably begins to develop in early adolescence. I don't know if you are a confessor Fr Raphael, but if so you will be able to say how you 'tailor' your responses to the child's age group...

ICXC
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

For those being received into the Orthodox Church who are already Christian the normal manner of reception is either through Baptism or Chrismation. In extremely rare circumstances this is done though a confession of Faith.

Some Orthodox jurisdictions are more likely to require Baptism while others require Chrismation only. In any case as the Baptism service always includes Chrismation through either manner of reception the person is always Chrismated.

Confession of Faith only is done extremely rarely. It is only applied in cases where it is felt that a major doctrinal issue is not at stake. For example in the past as the Russian Empire was expanding to include Slavs whose ancestors had been Orthodox but who had become Eastern-rite Catholics (Uniates) while under Polish control- often these people were received back into Orthodoxy simply by Confession of Faith. If I remember correctly this was also how rigourist sects such as the Donatists were received back into the Church since the disagreement was not over doctrine.

Yes every child is different when it comes to confession. Some are able to understand sin & express themselves well younger than 7 while others are not able to do this until some time after 7. So the age of 7 is no more than a general point for the parents to aim at.
Generally we get the parents to talk to the children beforehand and guide them as to what confession is. Each priest will be a bit different but it is wise I think to let the child begin very simply. In time as their consciences develop they often naturally begin to confess in a deeper way.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kevin Teo]

Just a question, how are candidates for chrismaion received into Orthodoxy according to their background? That is, if he or she is from a Protestant(not necessarily always denominational) or Catholic background, and has been baptised within that setting, is baptism practised once again with a second declaration of the baptismal Trinitarian formula? What other things are involved in chrismation as well? Do pardon my ignorance. How different is chrismation from baptism as such within an Orthodox setting?

[Patrick Walsh]

Somehow I missed the original question in this thread. Infant baptism is a contentious issue with the Protestant groups who do not allow it. The sad truth of this is that this "doctrine" has its origins from a political motive rather than one based on theology. The first Protestant groups to teach against infant baptism were the Anabaptists. The motivation of their "theology" was that the church records were often consulted by the tax collectors, and each household had to pay a tax on each person living in the house. If the infant was not baptism, there was no tax assessed on it. Once one tracks down the beginnings of some of these heresies, one can begin to see how really shameful they are.

But the real reason I wanted to respond to this was that there was a comment in the original question that bothered me a little bit, and no one bothered to examine it.

Byron wrote, "Infant baptism [is] a release from original sin..." The Symbol of Faith says, "One baptism for the remission of sins." Not "original sin," but all sins committed by the person prior to his baptism. The notion of original sin that seems to be implied here is a theological error of medieval Scholasticsm which misinterpreted the phrase "peccatori originali" in St. Augustine's writings.

The Scholastic theologians conceived the idea that each person is guilty for the sin of Adam. The theological problems pursuant to this notion extended to Christ, who was fully man and fully God. In his human fullness, if we are guilty of Adam's sin, then so was Christ. This is why the Roman Catholic Church forced itself to adopt the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos." It was only through this second error that the first error could be removed from Christ. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility has painted the Roman Catholic Church into a corner more than once in exactly this manner.

St. Gregory the Theologian wrote famously, "What was un-assumed, was un-healed." If we are guilty of Adam's sin, and Christ did not assume the guilt of Adam, then his crucifixion was meaningless. We are still guilty of Adam's sin. (I am oversimplifying the argument substantially here just to make the point. See below for a more grounded work which explains this further.)

My spiritual father explained to me how sin entered into the world, not in the form of inherited guilt, but rather in the form of our fallen nature. We are predisposed to sinfulness to such a degree it is nearly impossible for us to go a single day without sinning. Only Christ managed to do this. But Christ did come and dwell among us, and assumed our fallen nature--the proclivity to sin--and resisted sin. Through his complete assumption of our nature, he brought salvation into the world.

My presentation of this is quite brief, and only suggests at the very profound questions that arise on this topic. Fr. John Romanides, a great theologian of the past century, wrote "Ancestral Sin," which if you are interested in is still in print. I encourage everyone to read this.

feofil

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

For those being received into the Orthodox Church who are already Christian the normal manner of reception is either through Baptism or Chrismation... Some Orthodox jurisdictions are more likely to require Baptism while others require Chrismation only. In any case as the Baptism service always includes Chrismation through either manner of reception the person is always Chrismated.

To this it should be added that Orthodox Baptism is never considered a second 'baptism'. It is more a matter of not accepting that what occurs outside of the Church is actually a sacrament. Following this ecclesiological perspective receiving through Chrismation only would not be a matter of accepting the validity of a baptism done outside the Church but rather of applying an act of economia on the part of the Church. The point is that we do not see this matter of how one is brought into the Church legalistically- 'one method only'- but rather of always & without fail bringing a person into the Church sacramentally in the manner in which this is suited to the actual person coming to the Church. To take an extreme example. There are cases in which pagans suddenly proclaimed themselves Christian and then were immediately martyred without ever having been baptised. These martyrs whom are now venerated as saints on the Church calendar, the Church considers baptised in their blood and this is not just a rhetorical way of speaking. By saying this it is meant that the martyr literally entered in a sacramental manner into the Church through a baptism of Blood.

In Christ- Fr Raphael