Let us now turn our attention to the Mystery of Chrismation.

Firstly, one usually wonders, what the essence and purpose of this Mystery is according to the opinion of Orthodoxy.

Chrismation takes place immediately after baptism. Chrismation is that divinely-suggested ceremony where by anointing parts of the body of the baptised person, the spiritual life that started by his baptism is "boosted" and perfected. Baptism, in other words, removes one's sins, and so is of a "negative" (depleting) nature; whereas chrismation enriches the baptised person with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, in order for the new spiritual life to be developed, and therefore is of a "positive" nature. And in so many words, baptism gives man his newly reborn nature, whereas chrismation develops it.

This Mystery, in order to be such, must also have the two elements: visible element and invisible divine grace, testified by both the Holy Bible and the Fathers of the first four centuries AD, right?

That is correct. And let us first examine the Holy Bible.

HOLY BIBLE

Apostle Paul in his 2 Corinth. 1:21-22 writes: "Now he that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and that hath anointed us, is God: Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts". Also, John in his 1 John 2:27 says: "And as for you, let the chrism which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his chrism teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him". Also, in verse 20 he says: "but you have the chrism from the Holy One, and know all things". As we see, there is mention here four times on chrism which gives Holy Spirit in our hearts.

But, one could say (like a lot of Evangelicals support) that this chrism is not external but only internal and means the confirmation, the consolidation of our hearts via the Holy Spirit in Christ. In other words, because in the Old Testament times it was a common means of invoking the gifts of the Holy Spirit (which is why the faithful ones were called christs - stemming from the word chrism), this expression must have formed in those times. Therefore, the mention of the word chrism here refers to internal chrismation only, confirmation of our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

Is it though impossible for the external chrismation to have been taken also from the Old Testament? Can the reader (or any of the Evangelicals who support the above view) prove, that these verses of the New Testament refer only to internal chrismation?

No, of course not, they would say. So then, one would ask; where do the Orthodox base their view that apart from the internal chrismation via confirmation there also exists external chrismation, anointing by oil?

It is certain that the above verses just by themselves are vague. Neither the evangelicals (or any one else who does not support the Orthodox view) are in a position to prove that chrismation is only internal nor the Orthodox are in a position to prove that chrismation is both internal and external. Possibilities we have to both of the above opinions. So therefore we must look to other verses as well from the Bible in order to seek the truth on the Mystery (or not) of chrismation.

Let us therefore look at the Acts of the Apostles 8:14-17: "Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For He was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost". From these verses it is clearly seen that baptism and the provision of the Holy Spirit via the application of the hands of the apostles were two different things.

Also, in Acts 19:2-6 it is mentioned: "And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied". Again, from the above verses it is evident that baptism and the transmission of the Holy Spirit via the application of the hands of the apostle, were two different things.

In Hebrews 6:1-4 we also read: "Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, ...". In the above verses there is talk of "doctrines of baptisms and imposition of hands" as being fundamental elements in christian teaching. It is therefore unquestionable that one thing is baptism, and another one is the provision of the Holy Spirit via the application of the hands of the Apostles, which is what chrism is for the Orthodox.

The above clearly lead one to a new question: do you want to tell me (they would ask), that that which the Apostles would do via the application of the hands is done by the Orthodox via chrismation?

That is correct.

But what right do the Orthodox have to replace the application of hands with chrismation?

This is indeed a great question; notice, however, dear reader, that, by asking the above question you must by definition have accepted (which is evident from the above analysis) that apart from baptism there was another special way of providing the Holy Spirit, namely  by application of the hands. The invisible element is of course the Spirit Who is transmitted and the visible element is the application of the hands. In other words, if one asks the above question (a very reasonable one indeed) he must however have already admitted that it is a Mystery indeed! The above biblical verses of course clearly show that the application of hands is indeed a Mystery, in the Orthodox sense. Therefore, those Evangelicals and any one else who has abolished this Mystery completely and neither do they use application of hands nor oil, are clearly in the wrong doctrinally. That is, the "mistake" done by those who have abolished this Mystery is much bigger than the "mistake" of the Orthodox who, it seems, have only altered it. The first word mistake in quotes is clearly a doctrinal mistake (we 're talking abolishing the mystery!) so we can remove the quotes from it, whereas the Orthodox mistake in quotes, can still justify the quotes around it, in case there was a reason for the alteration i.e. provided the alteration can be justified (in which case the very first verses mentioned, the "vague" ones, would clearly need to be interpreted in the Orthodox way too). With this in mind, let us proceed.

So, then, let us rephrase the above question: why do the Orthodox replace this Mystery of application of hands with chrismation by oil?

Based on the Holy Bible alone, it seems, so far, that both the Orthodox and all heterodox christians are in the wrong; the Orthodox (and the Romeocatholics to an extent) who have not abolished the Mystery less than others perhaps; but still in the wrong. The above sounds to be indeed the sad truth; that though being the case if we base our arguments only on the Bible. However, as we have seen time and again, "the gates of Hades" cannot destroy the One Church of Christ, so therefore, wherever that Church lies, it must have kept the true Mystery in a true form, somehow; for if we are all wrong then Christianity would simply be a joke (for the Bible would have lied and the Church would have gone astray completely at some point in history)!

We have seen many times, that, apart from the Bible, we also have the Tradition, around which the Bible exists and has a unique meaning (c.f. Chapter 1 and Theme One). Therefore it is possible that what is vague from a biblical point of view is clarified in the Tradition. Since otherwise we must deduce that all churches in the world are partially or totally wrong regarding this doctrine, something impossible as we have seen by the very words of the Bible itself (c.f. also previous Analysis of doctrines), thus we must necessarily resort to the Tradition and examine it carefully. And those groups in the world that keep a remnant of this Mystery using application of hands, do not uphold the One Truth for they fail to uphold all the other doctrines we have discussed so far in the previous analysis; and anyway regarding this Mystery, they do not treat it as a carrier but only as a model (c.f. Theme 3); in other words not as a Mystery. With the above in mind let us proceed.

So then, let us rephrase the question once more: Since the Bible itself is inadequate in demonstrating this, when we look back at the Tradition (and at the same time at ecclesiastical history), what happened regarding this Mystery that was being done by the apostles and that we read of in the Bible and seems of such fundamental importance in Christianity? And, why did the Orthodox Church replace this Mystery of application of hands with chrismation by oil?

HOLY TRADITION

We can finally answer the above question and satisfy the well-justified curiosity of the reader. Two are the reasons for the "replacement". One is the vagueness of the aforementioned verses on chrism (2 Corinth. 1:21-22. 1 John 2:27.20). The other reason is the holy Tradition. We said, in other words, that verses 2 Corinth. 1:21-22 and 1 John 2:27.20 that talk about chrism are vague and could imply either the existence of internal chrismation only or the existence of internal and external chrismation. We have also discussed in Theme One the value of the Divine Tradition, that it was she that divided the authentic writings of the Apostles from the falsified ones. The Tradition is the one that differentiated between the historically credible books of the Apostolic Fathers (one of these was the epistle of Polycarp of Smyrne) and the ones that were historically genuine and divinely inspired (such as the gospels of Mark and Luke are). Thus, this Tradition of the Church which saw between the historically truthful and the divinely inspired books is in a position to determine the meaning of these vague verses on chrism and to say that, apart from the application of the hands, the Holy Spirit was also being communicated by another way too, during the apostolic times, namely the Chrismation by Oil. And this is exactly what happened historically too (as we shall see in section 6.3 below). The Divine Tradition on the subject of Chrismation that I will shortly mention gave to those hagiographically vague (i.e. biblically vague) verses on chrism this specific meaning for this Mystery. Therefore according to the Tradition, during the apostolic times there were two ways of conducting this Mystery: via chrismation by oil and via application by hands.

But what would be the reason for having two different ways to conduct the above Mystery?

According to the Tradition, we know that, during the apostolic times, at the very beginning, when the number of Christians was very small, and the communication of the Holy Spirit to them via application of their hands was easy to do, the apostles would do exactly this i.e. apply their hands on the faithful ones. However, as the number of Christians grew progressively, it was not possible for the apostles to apply their hands to all Christians and the transmission of the Holy Spirit was given via chrismation, which chrism was probably blessed by the Apostles themselves. This is plain from the words of the Fathers of the first four centuries AD who speak about both these ways of providing the Holy Spirit; one being done by the application of the hands of the bishops (in the post-apostolic sense of the word of course; c.f. Celibacy of bishops) and the other via chrism given by the presbyters. Therefore, as the reader can see clearly, the Orthodox use as an explanation for their smaller "deviation", the Divine Tradition, that second source of the words of God, giving the meaning of  chrismation by oil to those vague verses of the Holy Bible on chrism. Those heterodox christians however, who have essentially almost only the Holy Bible as a source for God's words, where do they base their greater "deviation" (and actual deviation) resulting from abolishing this Mystery, since the aforementioned verses (Acts 8:14-17. 19:2-6. Hebr. 1-4) speak so cleary on the existence of this Mystery?

Let us finally turn our attention to the opinion of the Fathers of the first four centuries AD

THE FATHERS OF FIRST FOUR CENTURIES AD
 

The testimonies on the subject of Chrismation are numerous, from Theophilus of Antioch all the way to John Chrysostom. Here are but a few:

1.) St. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (169 - 180 AD): "Thus, we, exactly because of this, are called christians; because we are chrismated (anointed) by oil" (On Antioch. 1, 12).

2.) Tertullian (155 - 240 AD): "Exiting the bath of the baptism, we are chrismated by Holy Oil following the old telesiourgia. Bodily, the chrismation is conducted upon us and then the hand is applied on us, which [hand] via the blessing, invokes the Holy Spirit Who thus descends upon us" (Baptism, cap. VII).

3.) The Synod of Carchedon (258 AD) formed by Cyprian and another 84 bishops decided: "It is necessary for the baptised one to receive chrism in order to receive Spirit the Holy and this way participate in Christ [i.e. to unite with Christ]. The heretics are not able to sanctify oil [i.e. to make it holy]".

4.) St. Cyprian (200 - 258 AD) : "Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesia baptizantur praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur et per nostram orationem ac manus impositionem Spiritum sanctum cohsequantur et signaculo dominico consummentur" (Epistle 73, 4).  I explain: "This is now also done by us [namely, the application of hands that was done by Peter and John in Samaria] in order for those that are baptised in Church be offered to the archbishops and via our prayer and application of our hands for them to receive the Holy Spirit and by means of the Main stamp [i.e. of chrismation] be perfected".

5.) St. Cyril of Jerusalem (312 - 386 AD) writes: "Similarly, to you also, that have exited the holy namata [i.e. waters] of your baptistery, chrism was given. Thus, by means of the visible myrrh the body is chrismated, and the soul is blessed by the [invisible] Holy and Life-giving Spirit" (Mystagogic catech. 16:1. 20:3).

6.) St. Gregory the Theologian (329 - 390 AD): "Baptismus quia peccatum in aqua sepelitur, unctio quia sacer et regius ... illuminatio quia splendor et claritas" (Migne 35, 111). The aforementioned is taken from his speech given on Holy Baptism, and translates: "Baptism [is named such] because the sin is buried; the chrism [is named such] because it is holy and royal [in the sense of: hierees (priests) and kings (royals) are chrismated by it] light, [and] because it is [the soul's] brilliancy and splendour".

7.) The Synod in Laodicaea (364 AD) mentions in its 7th canon "regarding those that return from heresies ... after being chrismated by holy chrism, then they can communicate [i.e. participate in] the holy Mysteries"; and regarding the faithful ones (Orthodox), that they must "be chrismated by heavenly chrism" (canon 48).

8.) Holy father Chrysostom (345 - 407 AD) writes: "And here. It is known by the ecclesiastical hierarchy 2 par. 8 Migne 3, 396 of the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite's writing of the 5th century AD, that during the old times the Holy Transmission [of the Spirit] was given for the first time to the neophotistos, where "the hierarch, after stamping the baptised one with the miraculous myrrh, would make him participant of the most hierotelestical sacrifice [i.e. the baptised person could now receive the divine Eucharist]". Having this in mind, father Chrysostom says in his 13th speech on Hebrews par. 4: "Those of us that were deigned worthy of the stamp, those of us that enjoyed of the sacrifice, those of us that participated in the immortal table, we stay, and keep, the kindness and honour".

One might have noticed that both Tertullian and St. Cyprian, after talking about chrismation, they also mention the application of hands. Why do these Ecclesiastical writers refer to the use of both elements, chrismation and application of hands?

This is indeed a good question. This happened because it was being conducted by bishops, as Cyprian testifies; here is the relevant verse again: "quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur [the application of hands done by Peter and John] ... praepositis [= was done by the archbishops]".

Is this also done today?

Yes my friends! The myrrh of chrismation is being blessed by the bishops! The blessing of myrrh today by the bishops is thus in place of the application of the hands of the Apostles.
 

CONCLUSION

This is how the things regarding the Mystery of Chrismation have, both from a Hagiographical and from a Patristic point of view. The application of the hands is unquestionable from a hagiographical point of view. From a Patristic point of view, during the Apostolic times, the modification of the replacement of chirothesy by myrrh took place. Chirothesy was kept as an institution during the post-apostolic times as well, so that sometimes it would be done by priests via myrrh, and sometimes it would be done by archpriests via chirothesy and myrrh. Today the Orthodox do the same thing. They chrismate via the application of myrrh, which is first blessed by Archpriests. This is how the Orthodox Church explains and justifies the modification of the form of the Mystery, from a Patristic point of view. Those heterodox christians however who have abolished this Mystery both Biblically and Patristically, how do they explain this?

THE MYSTERY OF MATRIMONY

Let us now examine the mystery of matrimony.

In the Orthodox Church we use the word Mystery in its "narrow" sense (c.f. Theme Three), namely the transmission of the invisible grace by visible means. Therefore, in Matrimony too, we should expect to see both factors present, namely the invisible grace and visible means. The evidence on the invisible grace will be found in the Bible whereas the evidence on the visible means shall be found in the Tradition of (at least) the first four centuries AD .

THE HOLY BIBLE

Let us first seek evidence on the specific divine grace for the Mystery of Matrimony.

Apostle Paul in his epistle to Ephesians writes: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband" (Ephes. 5:31-33). When the apostle uses the word "mystery" here, what is he referring to?

Mystery, a lot of Protestants would say, means simply something mysterious, incomprehensible. Marriage is in itself mysterious, incomprehensible, because the son or the daughter by coming into communion of matrimony with their future spouse leave both their father and their mother, who until that time were the people closest to them, and now unite with a person outside the family who could even be a complete stranger to them. This union of matrimony is not done against the spouses' will, it is not a forced action, but is done with great joy not only by the future newly-weds, but also by their parents. Marriage is the greatest celebration of sons or daughters and their parents. The firm bond between the children and their parents stops with marriage, and it does so by the happy consent of both parties (for firm bonds could also break when parents and their children argue; but that is not done with the mutual consent of each other with happiness on both sides!). How is this achieved? It is a mystery!

If the reader holds the belief of the above paragraph, then, he must also deduce that, mystery, if indeed it is mentioned in the Ephesians' verse in the sense of the word mystery of the previous paragraph's, is not only the christian wedding but any wedding, whether that be before Christ (BC) or after Christ (AD) and without Christ, because it has these mysterious characteristics.

Apostle Paul however adds the following: "This is a great mystery; but I speak in Christ and in the Church". What does the Apostle mean then by the words "in Christ and in the Church"?

Following the non-orthodox interpretation of the word mystery given above, one might say the following: The marital bond, for the aforementioned reasons, is incomprehensible, "a great Mystery" as the apostle calls the marriage of the Bridegroom, Christ, with the Bride, the Church. It is, in other words, incomprehensible to us how Christ left His Father in heaven, came to earth and married the Church whose members, who are people, were not only foreign to God, but also His enemies. Therefore the matrimony between people is a mystery, whereas the matrimony of Christ with the Church is a Great Mystery. Thus the marriage between men is a poor image of the marriage of Christ with the Church. Therefore there is no special invisible divine grace present in the meaning of the word "mystery" of this verse of Apostle Paul's.

Therefore, from the above deductions, it is not hard to see that those who do not attribute the narrow sense to the word mystery mentioned here in the Bible (i.e. in the Orthodox sense) but assign to it the above-mentioned non-Orthodox view must hold one (or both) of the following views; to avoid confusion I shall use single quotes around the Orthodox interpretation of mystery (i.e. 'mystery') and double quotes for the non-Orthodox one (i.e. "mystery").

a.) If the word mystery is interpreted as "mystery", then it refers to every marriage: both the non-christian wedding and the pre-Christian wedding (BC), because of the great mutual attraction that is present between two, essentially strangers to each other, heterosexuals; and

b.) This marriage is only an icon, an image of the heavenly marriage of Christ with the Church and nothing else.

The reader holding the double-quoted belief will agree at this stage.

If we pay close attention to the Apostolic text, however, we will notice that the Apostle defines this physical bond of marriage by saying: "and they shall be two in one flesh". Therefore the Apostle has in his mind a notion of marriage which takes place between one male and one female, two people, in other words monogamy and not polygamy. In pre-Christian times however we did not have monogamy but polygamy, because each man could get married to many women. Even the great Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob each of them had two spouses. Also, during the times of our Lord, the Israelites would abolish the institution of monogamy with divorce, which divorce had been allowed by Moses due to the hard-heartedness of the Jews, as the Lord informs us; "but from the beginning it was not so", He underlines (Matth. 19:8). With these words ("from the beginning") He is referring to the institution, that God defined during the creation: "and they shall be two in one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Therefore this verse of Apostle Paul's is referring to the christian wedding and not every wedding, because in the christian wedding only was monogamy fully established, the one mentioned above in Genesis, and repeated here by the Apostle. Also, let us not forget that Apostle Paul is writing these to the Christians of Ephesus and not to the Ethnics. Therefore he is clearly talking about Christian wedding here, and not about every kind of wedding.

OK; I am sure every reader will now agree that the mystery that Apostle Paul is referring to is not a "mystery". However we have not shown that it necessarily is a 'mystery'. Where does one find in this christian marriage the specific divine grace, that the christian marriage must have in order to possess the one of the two elements of the mystery (in order for it to be half-way to being a 'mystery')?

Apostle Paul places as a model of the christian marriage the marriage of Christ and the Church; and says regarding women: "Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things" (Ephes. 5:24). For the male christians, he says the following: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it" (Ephes. 5:25). The Apostle therefore, as we see clearly, wants such a hypakoe (obedience) of the female christian wives to their husbands, in the same way the Church subjects herself to Christ. And since the hypakoe of the Church to Christ is not a natural hypakoe, but  a 'hyper-natural" one (i.e. is above nature), in a similar way the christian woman must have such a hypakoe towards her husband. The same thing is said for male christians who are married. They must love their wives even till death (i.e. even die for them if need be), in the same way Christ loved the Church (and died for her). But in the same way Christ's love for the Church was 'hyper-natural', above-human-standards in size, extremely great, thus must the husband's love for his wife be. The Apostle in other words, asks for an absolute hypakoe of the woman to her husband and love till death if need be of the man to his wife. In order for these hypernatural models be achieved, shouldn't there be special divine grace, in order for the physical bond of marriage achieve this hypernatural status?

The reader will agree at this stage that, if by the "divine element" in the mystery we mean the above-mentioned grace, needed to uplift the physical bond of christian matrimony to the hypernatural sphere which Apostle Paul asks for in the aforementioned verses 5:24-25, then there are no objections there and that indeed the mystery is half-way to being a 'mystery'.

However at this stage the reader may wish things are a little better clarified, and in particular regarding the following issues:

(1.) The commandment of matrimony in verse Gen. 2:24: "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh";

(2.) The marriage of Christ with the Church, this "Great Mystery" as the Apostle puts it in Ephes. 5:32, and

(3.) The Christian matrimony.

In other words, what is exactly the relation between (1.), (2.) and (3.) ?

The commandment of matrimony in Gen. 2:24 is a figure, or typos to use the proper theological term, icon of the marriage of Christ with the Church. The christian marriage has as its protypon i.e. as its model, the marriage of Christ with the Church. Thus, between the typos "a man shall leave ..." of Gen. 2:24 and the christian marriage lies at the centre the marriage of Christ with the Church, which is a protypon of the christian marriage.

But what exactly is the difference between the typos which is attributed to the commandment of matrimony in Gen. 2:24 and the protypon which is attributed to the Great Mystery of marriage between Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32)?

The typos deals with the future, is of a prophetic nature, it is a shadow, it is void of essence and awaits the body, its fulfillment. Such was the commandment of matrimony given in Gen. 2:24 opposed to the Eph. 5:32, which is "the Great Mystery" of the union of Christ with the Church. Now, the marriage of Christ with the Church is called protypon because the christian marriage refers to the past, to the marriage of Christ with the Church.  Thus, we see that the christian marriage is not of a static nature, like the typos's commandment in Gen. 2:24 was, but of a dynamic, of an "energetic" nature, because it has in front of it a complete protypon, alive, completed (Ephes. 5:32), namely the "Great Mystery" to which it "tends to". Shouldn't there be, therefore, specific divine grace to the christian marriage, in order for it to reach the protypon (model) marriage of Christ with the Church according to the Ephes. 5:22-25?

OK. The reader will probably agree at this stage that matrimony is half-way to being a 'mystery', because he will accept the invisible divine grace that it is needed in matrimony.

To re-iterate the above interpretation of course we must also resort to the Tradition, where we will also (and should also) witness the visible element needed to ensure Matrimony is indeed a Mystery (in the sense of 'mystery').

TRADITION ON MATRIMONY

Visible element is the consent of the future newly-weds and the blessing of the Church. The first one, the consent, is found in the freedom which the Lord teaches about, whereas the blessing of the future newly-weds in the Tradition of (at least) the first four centuries AD

• First century: St. Ignatius, who suffered martyrdom at 107 AD, writes to Polycarp: "The males and females going to get married should do so with the opinion of the bishop, in order for the matrimony to be in God and not by [physical] wish".
• Second century: Tertullian (135 - 240 AD) writes: "Matrimonium Ecclesia consiliat et confirmat oblatio et obsignat benedictio, Angeli renunciant Pater rato habet", namely: "Matrimony is conducted by the Church, confirmed by the offer, consolidated by the blessing, announced by angels, sanctioned by the Father" (ad uxor 11, 9).
• Third century: St. Ambrosius (335 - 397 AD) writes also: "Cum ipsum conjugium sacerdotati et benedictione sanctificari oporteat ..."; i.e. "because this marriage must be sanctified via the hieratical blessing ..." (Epist. 19, 6).
• Basil the Great (330 - 379 AD) writes: "o ths fysews desmos o dia ths eylogias zygos" (Hexaemeron, VII, 5); i.e. " the bond of nature, the yoke via the blessing".
• Chrysostom (345 - 407 AD) writes: "Deon ... toys iereas kalein kai di' eyxwn kai eylogiwn thn omonoian tou synoikesiou sysfiggein, ina o po0os toy nymfioy ay3hta: kai h swfrosynh ths korhs epiteinhtai" (Bareille tom. 8, 99).

Matrimony is a Mystery because it contains the invisible divine grace about which Apostle Paul talks in his epistle to Ephesians, and the visible element which is the blessing of the Church about which the Tradition till today, and that of the first 4 centuries AD, talks about.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN THIS SECTION
 

• chrism = One also finds the word "unction" in place of "chrism", but the koine text reads "xrisma" i.e. chrism; also note that the word "anointed" in red above, really is in the koine text "xrisas" i.e. has the same roots as the word "xrisma"; but of course one does not say "chrismate" so we say "anointed" but the importance of essentially the same word being used is lost alas in the translation.
• telesiourgia = The formal ceremony associated with the conducting of an important religious event; a Mystery in our case of course. For example, the Romeocatholics have altered the telesiourgia of Chrismation even though they have kept it as a Mystery.
• baptism = We remind the reader at this point that the word baptism stems from the Greek word baptizo which means to immerse. For more details on  the Mystery of Baptism, please read the previous Analysis notes.
• hieros = The word hieros means holy.
• chirothesy = Application of hands.
• mystery = The Vulgate very correctly (as we shall see in the remainder of the analysis) uses the word sacrament. This is the sense of the word mystery used both in the Bible and in the Orthodox sense of the word, i.e. its "narrow" sense (and the Romeocatholic one too). Of course mystery is also the fact that the Father is unbegotten etc. (in a more general sense). The KJV here is even more correct in a way, for it does not fail to show the exact word used in the koine text (i.e. mysterion = mystery); this however is not due to its trying to be accurate I think, but rather due to lack of belief in its sacramental essence.
• in Christ, in the Church = The KJV does a terrible translation here and says "concerning Christ and concerning the Church". The Vulgate, says it correctly: "in Christ and in the Church". The first translation implies that all this talk was concerning Christ and the Church only (i.e. the marriage of the Bridegroom with the Bride), whereas the original koine reads "Egw de legw eis Xriston kai eis ekklhsian"; the word eis means in.
• who are people = We have discussed in Theme Two that not all people in the world (not even the so-called christian world) are necessarily within the Church; only those who belong to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church i.e. the Orthodox Church.