Talk:Chrism

Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses

I think these comparisons are out of order. Chrism is an oil quite distinct from that used for annointing the sick, so it does not correspond to any oils used for that purpose. If the Mormons use pure olive oil in their ceremonies, then that doesn't correspond either: Chrism is never pure olive oil, but rather harks back to the fragrant "oil of holy ointment" of Exodus 30:22-38. Such oil is not used in the Washing of the Feet ceremonies where that is performed either. I'll be cutting these references unless someone can supply a cogent argument why they should stay. TCC (talk) (contribs)

Having had no response to this, I'm reverting. These oils are simply not the same things. If you want to discuss other kinds of holy oils, I suggest an appropriate article be started. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I was traveling and did not see your original note above. The fact is these sects call, or have called the oil "Chrism" now or in the past. I know this doesn't fit your mold and obviously, it is different that today's terminology and rites, but still relevant, as that is the terminology they used. The Orthodox and Catholics do not "own" the term, and thus stating that everyone elses use of it is invalid. The dictionary states that Chrism is holy oil, or a sacramental anointing. The definitions you are using is solely orthodox and catholic. I'm adding back in.

You didn't say it was called "Chrism" by them; you just said that Chrism was "similar to" other oils used in various Protestant denominations. Now you have said so, so it's clearer. Thank you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. It was my poor writing. As I mentioned, I didn't see your note, or we would have had this discussion a week or more ago. Thanks for your patience with this revert. -Visorstuff 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Even early baptist reformers used Chrism after baptism, thus again showing that it was used in protestant denominations.

In addition, I'm not sure why you felt that the ancient christian information should be deleted. It contains some of the oldest references to Chrism and "Chrism ordinances" available. It is relevant.

I didn't cut it; I moved it. The reference is still there, although linked in the "External links" section. I also linked to the HTML page for the specific relevant section, which is a more pleasant read than that oddly mangled text file. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - your recent edits look good for the most part. -Visorstuff 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at the article, it's plain you didn't read my edits carefully. The "Eastern Orthodox" section mentions St. Cyril's discussion. This plainly needs a new edit: Chrism in Eastern Orthodoxy is exactly the same, and is used in exactly the same way and with exactly the same meaning as in Cyril's day, and any distinction between the two is purely artificial. (At least the Eastern Orthodox would see it that way, since it sees itself as directly continuous with the Church in that place of that time. Possibly this information should go into the intro.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct - I was reverting and waiting for further discussion. Interesting insight, I've only familiar with Orthodox Chrism ceremonies - having never received them myself, only participated ancilliary. -Visorstuff 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the catholic/orthodox chrism is made the same as the pure oil "chrism" of some protestants, restorationists and JWs, it is considered the same, and has been called the same. In addition to what I've referenced in the article, Chrism is used by some protetstant sects in the baptism of people who are allergic to water, or are unhealthy to be be baptized but request it. -Visorstuff 19:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that it's "considered" the same; it's not made the same way and it's not used the same way. However, if they call it that, then it clearly belongs here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There is much evidence that early baptists reformers used the same mixture as the Catholics, as they broke from them. To the adherent of these groups, it is seen as just as binding. Some sects use strong wine for communion, some grape juice and some water. The mixture is less important than the use and the terminology used. -Visorstuff 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In my most recent edit, I removed information that appeared to me repetitive. I also cut references to "consecrated oil" where there was no claim it was called Chrism; it seems to me that this article ought to be about the subject in the title. If it is not called Chrism then it's something else. (Even the usage employed here is a bit of a stretch. You will find, for example, no references to Chrism being used to annoint the sick prior to the Reformation. There's probably a reason why these groups no longer use the term.)

You may feel that the mention of Mormonism is too elliptical; if so then I invite you to add a section parallelling those for Catholicism and Orthodoxy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I've heard Orthodox adherents and clergy refer to Chrism as "consecrated oil" as it is set apart through ordinance. In fact, one of the links included includes this view. Again, this is a terminology difference.

As far as "no references to Chrism being used to annoint the sick prior to the Reformation" again this is semantics, as gnostic and coptic texts state that washings and annointings took place among the sick, howver, I do see your point. Oil and Balsam are seen as healing agents, so they were used (such as in the good samaritan story) to help in healing. But again, simply semantics.

We are talking at cross-purposes. Chrism is consecrated oil, but there are other consecrated oils besides chrism. This is the point I don't seem to be conveying, and is why I objected to the original expansion in the first place, since it seemed to be discussing oils other than chrism or anything called chrism. The oil used for annointing the sick is quite distinct in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and probably among the Copts too, as would any oil used in the foot-washing ceremony.

It's incorrect to simply gloss "oil" as "chrism" as is done in one place here; "oil" in Greek is "elaion" and is probably what Cyril wrote if that's how it was translated. "Chrism" is "Chrisma" in Greek and if it's translated using some other word it's usually "ointment", not "oil".

Gnosticism is not Christianity and cannot be taken as an indicator of authentic Christian practice at any period in history. Actual Coptic Christians would, I think, be rather offended at finding themselves lumped in with them.

Incidentally, there's no such thing as "simply semantics". Semantics are all-important; it's the part of language where meaning is conveyed. If two statements are semantically different, they're saying different things. The reason people try to avoid semantic arguments isn't because they're insignificant (quite the contrary, and contrary to the claim in the linked article), but because they're difficult.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ordinance" here. As you're using it, it's not a familiar term to most Christians. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Mormonism tie to early christianity is interesting and should be pointed out. I'll see if I can re-write in some way and include. For now, I'll piggy back on the orthodox and catholic mentions in the intro. Thanks for the work on this. The article will be stronger because of this exchange. -Visorstuff 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The section on Anglicans and Lutherans might be true of Lutherans (I can't say), but regarding Anglicans it is mostly wrong. Anglicans usually speak of "confirmation," rather than "chrismation," and there is no provision for a mere priest to perform chrismation at all, let alone to bless the chrism. Anglicanism has retained the old Western custom of reserving the administration of confirmation for bishops. BALawrence 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Error on lead photo

As the caption on the lead photo clearly states, the vessel in question is marked "OS", standing for "Holy Oil"; however, the vessel of chrism would traditionally be marked "SC" (the third vessel would be marked "OI", Latin for "oil for the infirm")--so this photo actually does not depict the subject of this article. MishaPan (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you were absolutely right and I have changed the photo. In my opinion didn't even look like chrism.--Turris Davidica (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

SCOPE

Given their very closely related subjects, someone wanting to bump this up to WP:GA status should probably take an hour or so and sort things properly between anointing and chrism. The entire present #Catholic section at Anointing probably belongs here, along with most of the #Orthodox section, since it's focused on the specific forms and treatment of the oil and not its ritual use. — LlywelynII 13:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Holy Chrism Consecration - His Holiness Moran Mor Baselios Marthoma Paulose II.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)