ODD 1: Salvation as the imitation of Christ.

[Dunemeister]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Welcome to the first installment of Orthodox Doctrine for Dummies![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"For to follow the Saviour is to be a partaker of salvation, and to follow light is to receive light."
- St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (d. AD 202), Adversus Haereses ([/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]AH[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]) IV.14.1[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Salvation is a matter of following the Saviour. To see what this means, we will look at the conception the Church has of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Christ[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] as Saviour. In particular, we will look at three themes: (1) the life and teachings of Jesus; (2) the suffering and death of Jesus; and (3) the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus. Although [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]n[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]either of the three themes constitutes salvation on their own in isolation from the other two[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif], [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]it is convenient to look at them [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]separately[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]. In the present post, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]we will elaborate on the theme of the life and teachings of Jesus and their relevance to salvation, particularly in the writings of Irenaeus.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Because salvation, however defined, is the fundamental truth of the gospel, the imitation of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Christ[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] as example and the obedience to [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Christ[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] as teacher must be seen in their close connection with it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]St. Irenaeus and recapitulation[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]For Irenaeus, the imitation of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Christ[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] by the [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Christ[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ian was part of God's cosmic plan of salvation which began with [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Christ[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]'s imitation of Adam[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]. As he put it, the Logos "assimilated himself to man and man to himself" in his life and passion (AH V.16.2). After his inc[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]arnation, he passed through every stage of human growth, hallowing each and redeeming each by “being made for them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission.” (AH II.22.4) The disobedience of the first Adam was undone by the complete obedience of the second Adam, so that many should be justified and attain salvation. (AH III.18.7) He summed up in himself the entire continuity of the human race and provided man with salvation in a concise summary. (AH III.18.1) “So the Word was made flesh, in order that sin, destroyed by means of that same flesh through which it had gained the mastery and taken hold and lorded it, should no longer be in us; and therefore our Lord took up the same first formation for an incarnation, that so he might join battle on behalf of his forefathers, and overcome through Adam what had stricken us through Adam.” (PAT 31) Christ became the example for men, as Adam had been the example for Christ; being the Logos of God, Christ was not only the example, but the examplar and prototype of the image of God according to which man had been created.(AH V.16.2)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This parallelism finds its origin in St. Paul’s discussions of the first and second Adam in Romans 5.[/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Therefore, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]just as[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]so[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] death spread to all because all have sinned — sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]type [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]of the one who was to come.[/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]But the free gift is not like the trespass. For [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]if[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] the many died through the one man’s trespass,[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] much more surely[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgement following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif], because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]much more surely[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.[/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Therefore [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]just as [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]so [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]just as [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]so [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]just as[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] sin exercised dominion in death, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]so [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:12 - 21)[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Thus, through the Incarnation, God in Christ took up Adam’s nature and, by his righteous life, hallowed and redeemed every stage of life, including death. In so doing, he provided us with an authoritative example which, if imitated, leads to salvation. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Recall that this understanding of Christ as Teacher and Christ as Example are connected to the themes of the suffering and death of Jesus, as well as to the resurrection and glorification of Christ. It would be beside the point to object at this point that the cross is nowhere mentioned in our statement of the early Church's conception of salvation. It is certainly there, but we will look at that part of it in future threads. But it is important to see at the outset just how important it is for Orthodox that Christ is, without qualification, our teacher and example.[/FONT]

 

[Dunemeister]

I failed to indicate how to read the references I made. AH refers to Irenaeus' work Against the Heresies. The citation is in the form AH Book#.Chapter.Paragraph. Thus AH III.15.2 means Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 15, Paragraph 2.

The other reference is PAT, which refers to Irenaeus' work Proof of the Apostolic Teaching. It is followed by a single number, which is a reference to a paragraph. Thus PAT 15 would mean Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Teaching, Paragraph 15.

Both of these works are available online.

 

[Shiranui117]

I think we've allowed enough time for the first part of this lesson to sink in. I would now like to continue to the second part of the Orthodox idea of "salvation as the imitation of Christ"--namely, our part in imitating Christ. In pointing to Christ as the example for all of us, it is plain that we should follow that example. Christ Himself describes the need for us to follow His teachings and His example in order to be saved; Matthew's Gospel relates this famous passage in chapter 7:

24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.​

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”​

By holding fast to Christ's commandments, and abiding in Him as our Lord exhorts us in John 15:4-7, we gain the power to overcome all troubles of this life; by holding fast to Christ and walking in His Way, we are able to brave the storms of this world. A small excerpt of St. John Chrysostom's commentary on this part of Matthew reads as follows:

He calls the steadfastness of His doctrine a rock; because in truth His commands are stronger than any rock, setting one above all the waves of human affairs. For he who keeps these things strictly, will not have the advantage of men only when they are vexing him, but even of the very devils plotting against him. And that it is not vain boasting so to speak, Job is our witness, who received all the assaults of the devil, and stood unmoveable; and the apostles too are our witnesses, for that when the waves of the whole world were beating against them, when both nations and princes, both their own people and strangers, both the evil spirits, and the devil, and every engine was set in motion, they stood firmer than a rock, and dispersed it all. NPNF1-10. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
​

So we see the following of Christ's as a sure means to overcome the many trials of our lives, no matter how difficult they may be; St. John Chrysostom then goes on to describe the treasures and rewards of obeying and imitating Christ that far outclass whatever worldly gain we may have, both in their value and in their permanence, despite what would otherwise be an unbearable multitude of cruel, horrific trials from the world.

The benefits of obeying Christ's commands and imitating Him are clear. But is this truly necessary for our salvation? We should first look to Christ's words themselves, and be mindful of when He says, "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) This teaching of Christ is affirmed both by St. Paul who said, "for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified" (Romans 2:3), and also by St. James, the brother of the Lord, who said "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." (James 1:22) and again, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:26).

What does St. James mean when he compares the relationship between faith and works to the body and soul? He means this: Just as we humans are a union of both body and soul, and we cannot truly live unless both are united, so our faith in Christ is not really faith unless it is united with works. This is why, in Orthodoxy, we do not dichotomize faith and works, setting them against each other as if they can exist independently of each other. Instead, we treat them always as a whole, always keeping them united, just as our body and soul should always be united. The division of soul from body is unnatural, as is the division of faith from works. We hold dear Habakkuk 2:2, "the just shall live by his faith." Faith is something to be lived by. This should clearly express the Orthodox opinion on "faith vs. works."

So it is clear from Scripture that mere belief is not enough for our salvation; we must also practice the teachings that Christ handed down to us, and follow His example. We are, after all, made new creations, having His image renewed in us. We never lose God's image within us. The call of our first parents was to grow in God's likeness. What is God's likeness? According to the Fathers, God's likeness consists of love, compassion, humility, discernment, wisdom, knowledge, self-control, chastity, patience, generosity, and all the other virtues. To grow in God's likeness means to grow in virtue, and to grow in virtue means to obey Christ's teachings and imitate Him. Salvation is to be found both in Christ's example (which is more than just a mere example!) and also our own imitation of Christ's example, and obedience to His teaching.

Comments and questions are of course welcome on anything we post! We would love to know if people are learning from this and would like us to continue our little series.
​

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What you are saying so far confirms my own beliefs Rather than teaches me something new.

I am not bothered by what St. John Chrysostom said in his works as he adds in issues that do not seem important to me like the works of the Devil, nor do I find Adam relevant to anything.

Your own comments are rather more on track and to the point.

 

[Shiranui117]

I understand how you don't find Adam relevant to anything, since you do not believe in the Fall IIRC. I do appreciate your comments though! Thank you kindly, and may God bless you!

EDIT: I suppose I'll clarify Adam's relevance in the Orthodox viewpoint. Whereas the first Adam disobeyed and strayed from God, and thus brought death to humanity, so Christ is in all things united to the Father and obedient to Him. Christ is the New Adam because He undoes Adam's mistake, bridging the gap between God and man that Adam created--both by His uniting the human and Divine natures within Himself, and by redeeming all parts of our experience (as Dunemeister pointed out) to God. Both the old and New Adams created ontological changes in human reality that we all participate in--the first Adam introduced sin, death, suffering and indifference to God, which we ratify in ourselves through sin (as Romans 5:12 states), and the New Adam introduces the cure for all of these things, that is, righteousness, life, peace and communion with God. We will be speaking more about the unitive aspect of salvation in later installments.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I find it strange that "anyone" not just Orthodox Christians can support so much of their doctrine on an ancient creation myth. And who also believe that the First man was created, rather than simply a point in the chain of evolution. This would seem to create an unresolvable dichotomy between science and religion.

However if you can believe in Adam as the first man, I suppose there is little reason not to be able to relate Jesus to his second incarnation. Though I would not equate Jesus to any previous entity.
I see him as always being the son of God, both before creation and after his incarnation.

 

[Shiranui117]

I find it strange that "anyone" not just Orthodox Christians can support so much of their doctrine on an ancient creation myth. And who also believe that the First man was created, rather than simply a point in the chain of evolution. This would seem to create an unresolvable dichotomy between science and religion.

Not at all. All the Fathers (especially St. John Chrysostom) make it very clear and restate over and over how Genesis is not a description of how the world was made, but instead only declares that God created the world and everything in it. How God did that is not the point of Genesis. In cases in the creation story where it says that God formed man out of dust, there is a spiritual lesson there, not a science lesson. God does not have hands with which to make man out of dust, nor does He have a mouth with which to breathe upon man and give him the spirit of life.

The creation stories, as the Fathers stated, are a show of God's synkatavasis, or condescension to our lack of understanding. The creation stories (that's "stories", plural; there are two different accounts in Genesis 1 and 2) are God's baby talk to us. They are God explaining the creation of the world and of mankind in a way that we could understand. This is what the Young Earth Creationists don't understand. They don't really know how to interpret the creation stories in Genesis, nor do they see the spiritual insights therein, so they're stuck at the most rudimentary, crude levels of interpretation--that is, the literal.

That being said, while the Fathers deny that the creation stories are "literal" in the way we think of the word literal (that is, being a exact description of how things came about), they do affirm that the creation stories are literally true--as in, they firmly believe that God did in fact create Heaven and Earth and everything therein, including man, without saying that the creation stories are an exact description of how God created them all. They do believe that there was a first man and a first woman. Which, evolutionarily speaking, is true; we would have had a first human man and a first human woman, and the initial number of humans would have been very small, since the specific group of genetic mutations that brought about the first true humans would have been limited to a small population most likely.

So, TLDR, Genesis is not in conflict with science, because both Genesis and science focus on different issues. Science seeks to describe how the world was created, guiding us to the physical knowledge, whereas Genesis is content with affirming that the world was created, and instead guiding us to the spiritual insights.

However if you can believe in Adam as the first man, I suppose there is little reason not to be able to relate Jesus to his second incarnation. Though I would not equate Jesus to any previous entity.
I see him as always being the son of God, both before creation and after his incarnation.

Jesus is not a reincarnation of Adam; in our icons of the Resurrection, Christ is shown pulling Adam out of his grave. They are two completely different people. Rather, Adam is a type of Christ. Typology was and is a very important part of Biblical exegesis, even in New Testament times. We see this very clearly in St. Paul's usage of typology.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not at all. All the Fathers (especially St. John Chrysostom) make it very clear and restate over and over how Genesis is not a description of how the world was made, but instead only declares that God created the world and everything in it. How God did that is not the point of Genesis. In cases in the creation story where it says that God formed man out of dust, there is a spiritual lesson there, not a science lesson. God does not have hands with which to make man out of dust, nor does He have a mouth with which to breathe upon man and give him the spirit of life.

The creation stories, as the Fathers stated, are a show of God's synkatavasis, or condescension to our lack of understanding. The creation stories (that's "stories", plural; there are two different accounts in Genesis 1 and 2) are God's baby talk to us. They are God explaining the creation of the world and of mankind in a way that we could understand. This is what the Young Earth Creationists don't understand. They don't really know how to interpret the creation stories in Genesis, nor do they see the spiritual insights therein, so they're stuck at the most rudimentary, crude levels of interpretation--that is, the literal.

That being said, while the Fathers deny that the creation stories are "literal" in the way we think of the word literal (that is, being a exact description of how things came about), they do affirm that the creation stories are literally true--as in, they firmly believe that God did in fact create Heaven and Earth and everything therein, including man, without saying that the creation stories are an exact description of how God created them all. They do believe that there was a first man and a first woman. Which, evolutionarily speaking, is true; we would have had a first human man and a first human woman, and the initial number of humans would have been very small, since the specific group of genetic mutations that brought about the first true humans would have been limited to a small population most likely.

So, TLDR, Genesis is not in conflict with science, because both Genesis and science focus on different issues. Science seeks to describe how the world was created, guiding us to the physical knowledge, whereas Genesis is content with affirming that the world was created, and instead guiding us to the spiritual insights.


Jesus is not a reincarnation of Adam; in our icons of the Resurrection, Christ is shown pulling Adam out of his grave. They are two completely different people. Rather, Adam is a type of Christ. Typology was and is a very important part of Biblical exegesis, even in New Testament times. We see this very clearly in St. Paul's usage of typology.

That point of view is a lot clearer... thanks..

However you still give this first person a name, as if he was a specific person.

I see Adam as a reference to a stage in human development not a person.
He represents those that first understood they were a tribe and used language to communicate. They were the first to recognise the abstract reasoning between right and wrong... good and evil. so in a legal sense could choose to sin. Until they had that reasoning ability, like children they knew no guilt; what ever they might have done. This was not an instant realisation but a growing and spreading one. (that is perhaps not yet complete)

We still have that ability to sin...act with guilt. Jesus did not change that at all.
nor did his coming change our ability to repent and be forgiven.

What his teaching made more explicit was that the meaning behind the law, is much more important than the law itself. And that that this message and all his teachings were inclusive of everyone.

This still leaves the question as to what Jesus achieved by his death on the cross and his resurrection? what in practical terms did it change?

It was certainly a profound lesson on the extent of Jesus love and an example that we could be required to follow in kind.
But I do not see that mankind received any thing that we did not have before.
We had forgiveness of sin
we had the constant support of the Holy Spirit
and we had God's certain love.

It gave us greater insight into God's love,
that Salvation was universal, in that it was available to everyone.
That Salvation is a process not a final action.

There was no trespass of "Adam" the sins of adam people was no more hung around our necks than the sins of our parents are.
Since guilt was recognised as sin, we have been responsible for our own sin.

 

[Shiranui117]

That point of view is a lot clearer... thanks..

However you still give this first person a name, as if he was a specific person.

Adam (meaning "man") is actually a play on words; the Hebrew word for ground is adamah. It signifies that man was made, as the creation story goes, from the dust of the ground. Dust we are, and to dust we shall return.

I give him the name that Scripture gives him. I do believe there was a first man and a first woman; whether all of humanity descended from these two alone, or there were other humans that evolved into the picture, I don't know.

I see Adam as a reference to a stage in human development not a person.
He represents those that first understood they were a tribe and used language to communicate. They were the first to recognise the abstract reasoning between right and wrong... good and evil. so in a legal sense could choose to sin. Until they had that reasoning ability, like children they knew no guilt; what ever they might have done. This was not an instant realisation but a growing and spreading one. (that is perhaps not yet complete)

Yes, until we obtained the rational faculty of our souls, we were innocent like the animals.

We still have that ability to sin...act with guilt. Jesus did not change that at all.
nor did his coming change our ability to repent and be forgiven.

What his teaching made more explicit was that the meaning behind the law, is much more important than the law itself. And that that this message and all his teachings were inclusive of everyone.

This still leaves the question as to what Jesus achieved by his death on the cross and his resurrection? what in practical terms did it change?

It was certainly a profound lesson on the extent of Jesus love and an example that we could be required to follow in kind.
But I do not see that mankind received any thing that we did not have before.
We had forgiveness of sin
we had the constant support of the Holy Spirit
and we had God's certain love.

It gave us greater insight into God's love,
that Salvation was universal, in that it was available to everyone.
That Salvation is a process not a final action.

There was no trespass of "Adam" the sins of adam people was no more hung around our necks than the sins of our parents are.
Since guilt was recognised as sin, we have been responsible for our own sin.

Oh, believe me, these questions of yours about what Christ did will be addressed with the utmost thoroughness.

I'll talk with Dunemeister about it, but I might like to do a series on the creation and Fall of man as well, once we finish the series on salvation... Some of the questions you ask about Adam's sin will be addressed in the series on salvation, but a more thorough and clear set of Orthodox Doctrine for Dummies lessons may need to be addressed towards the creation and Fall, since the first part of Genesis is so crucial to understanding the history of man's relationship with God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Thanks again...

I much prefer a rational approach to religious beliefs.
After all, if you believe in God as I do, it needs a real world explanation.
God and Jesus are real, they do things for a purpose not simply to to confirm ancient scripture.

Certainly, oral and written scripture has been used as a teaching aid for millennia. But it is flexible in that it allows and require interpretation to give meaning in the light of new situations and new times. The Christian community is perhaps less able in this than the Jews.
Sorry to hog this thread so much....

(The orthodox and Anglican thinking is often rather closer than the Roman one.)

 

[Shiranui117]

Thanks again...

I much prefer a rational approach to religious beliefs.
After all, if you believe in God as I do, it needs a real world explanation.
God and Jesus are real, they do things for a purpose not simply to to confirm ancient scripture.

Certainly, oral and written scripture has been used as a teaching aid for millennia. But it is flexible in that it allows and require interpretation to give meaning in the light of new situations and new times. The Christian community is perhaps less able in this than the Jews.
Sorry to hog this thread so much....

(The orthodox and Anglican thinking is often rather closer than the Roman one.)

Not a problem! We intended to leave these topics open to discussion for whoever wants to.

You are right that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit don't do things just to confirm Scripture. It's the other way around; Scripture confirms, prophesies, and points to what God does, and this is the reason that God gave us the Scriptures, that we may better understand what He has revealed and done.

I think that, ever since the Scholastic movement took hold in the West, Western Christianity's theology has become largely dominated by reason, with mystery being in some sense devalued in favor of systematic methods of theology. The Anglicans, I think, have made good headway towards rediscovering the value of mystery, as well as stepping away from the legalistic strains of reason advocated by Anselm. Reason can be an excellent means of defending the Faith, but mystery is given far more emphasis in the Orthodox tradition. The foundation of Orthodox theology is not on reason, but on living experience of the mystery of God, the Gospel, and the history and nature of our relationship with the Trinity. Reason is a means of clarifying aspects of that mystery and that experience, but we can never exhaust the fullness of the mystery. Our eyes can only penetrate so far through the deep ocean waters.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It would seem that all the sacraments are better acknowledged as mysteries, rather than as following an instruction.

I prefer to think of the celebration of the Eucharist as always taking place in the presence of Jesus and the deciles. We and he are there. The elements are as they were and have the same meaning to us as they had on that day... That is the mystry.... it needs no wordy or invented explanation as to how it could be so. There can be only one Eucharist.


But that is another matter.

 

[Dunemeister]

It would seem that all the sacraments are better acknowledged as mysteries, rather than as following an instruction.

I prefer to think of the celebration of the Eucharist as always taking place in the presence of Jesus and the deciles. We and he are there. The elements are as they were and have the same meaning to us as they had on that day... That is the mystry.... it needs no wordy or invented explanation as to how it could be so. There can be only one Eucharist.


But that is another matter.

I will get into the connection between the Mysteries -- especially Holy Eucharist, Holy Baptism and Chrismation -- and salvation in an upcoming post. Thank you for your comments, TWP, as they have provided some useful suggestions for where to take future discussions.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I will get into the connection between the Mysteries -- especially Holy Eucharist, Holy Baptism and Chrismation -- and salvation in an upcoming post. Thank you for your comments, TWP, as they have provided some useful suggestions for where to take future discussions.

The Anglican church is one of the few that follow Baptism by anointing with chism( previously blessed by a bishop) ( we do not call this Chrismation) This is certainly not followed in all Anglican churches but is is at ours. We also make the connection and allow young baptised children to celebrate the Eucharist, which for many years had been forbidden in the church before they were confirmed.

 

[Shiranui117]

The Anglican church is one of the few that follow Baptism by anointing with chism( previously blessed by a bishop) ( we do not call this Chrismation) This is certainly not followed in all Anglican churches but is is at ours. We also make the connection and allow young baptised children to celebrate the Eucharist, which for many years had been forbidden in the church before they were confirmed.

How interesting! I was led to believe that this practice was only continued among the Eastern/Oriental Catholics and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox. I had no idea that the Anglicans still did this! Thanks for sharing