Apostolic Blessing at the Hour of Death

[FrDavid96]

The Apostolic Blessing or Pardon at the Hour of Death is part of the Last Rites.

In a recent thread, we started an interresting conversation on this topic. I’d like to start a new thread here for an open discussion on this topic. Any comments, questions, or discussion of the Apostolic Blessing/Pardon, or for that matter the Last Rites in general would be most welcome.

As Catholics, we need not only to discuss this blessing but also to understand it.

Let’s chat!.

To get us started, here’s a link to the text of the Blessing
sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/36-the-sacrament-of-the-anointing-of-sick-apostolic-blessing-plenary-indulgence-at-the-hour-of-death.html
The link is to the text as found in the *Rituale Romanum *and it is entirely in English.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I think this is one of the most amazing gifts Christ gives us through His Church. I only hope that when I die there is a priest available who will impart this blessing to me.

I think it’s important to note that this is not a “magic formula”; there must be contrition on the part of the dying person in order for it to be effective. (If the dying person is unconscious or unable to respond, we can hope that the person would have wanted to be forgiven of his or her sins.)

It reminds me of the repentant thief who gained heaven in an eleventh hour act of love for as he hung on the cross next to Jesus.

 

[benedictgal]

I had an interesting experience with this. My best friend’s mother was in danger of death. My PV, our mutual friend, informed me of the gravity of the situation and I went to be with my friend. On my way to her hospital room, I ran into my local ordinary at the Intensive Care Unit. I told him of about my friend’s mother and asked him if he wouldn’t mind seeing her. He agreed and we went into the room.

My friend, a lapsed Catholic, was shocked to see both of us and he immediately prayed over her (my PV had already annointed her–the bishop knew that already). He imparted the Apostolic Blessing on her and led us in prayer. He then prayed over her again. At about 3AM, my friend’s mom died. When I spoke to my friend, she was still surprised that the bishop came. I told her that her mother was granted a special privilege that not very many people have in that it’s rare that a bishop shows up on your death bed. I explained to her what the Apostolic Blessing was and she was happy that her mother received it directly from the bishop, himself (although I believe it had been imparted previously by my PV when he annointed her–but, given my friend’s state, I wasn’t going to press for details). It gave her great comfort and peace. I believe that her mother was aware that the bishop was there based on the expression on her face. She couldn’t speak; all she did was moan. It was difficult to watch her, but, it was harder for my friend.

I helped my friend plan her mother’s funeral. My PV celebrated the Mass and it was beautiful.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Fr. David,

I want to preface all of the following with a clear disclaimer that I am not the minister of the sacraments or rites as you are, nor do I have expertise in liturgical history. My training in sacramental theology is rudimentary. I offer the following as a ordinary laymen, attempting to help you clarify your thoughts on the matter.

VC
I’m still confused. To quote the article:The Apostolic Pardon, or Benediction, forgives temporal punishment due to our sins. If anything remains from our lives, provided we die in the state of grace, for which we have not done adequate penance is forgiven us through the Apostolic Pardon.The words “is forgiven us” still lead me to believe that somehow the Pardon does forgive all sins.

Fr., I think that might be clarified by the preceding clause “provided we die in the state of grace”. Thus is seems that the phrase “is forgiven us” is used in the generic sense of “remitted”. In this case that which is remitted is the temporal punishment.

Turning to the questions you brought up from the Roman Ritual, I’ll offer my thoughts. IMPORTANT: Fr. are you using the 1964 Roman Ritual or the later 2 volume “The Rites”? I don’t have “The Rites”, so please help me along if there is substantial departure. The following is assuming you are reading from the 1964 Roman Ritual.

1. If the Apostolic blessing is not meant to absolve from all sins, why do the words appear there so clearly (in my own reading at least)?

I don’t see them, at least not the words of sacramental absolution? Could you point them out again? I do see the “absolution” that follows the Confiteor , but that is the general liturgical absolution, right?

1. Why the words “pardon” and “remission” rather than the word “absolve or absolution”? Does that indicate that it in fact in not intended to “absolve”? What’s the difference?

I think so. The Ritual actually speaks of the priest hearing confession and then absolving (sacramentally), and later granting the Apostolic Pardon and remitting. They seem distinct in the ritual.

1. In the long form, confession comes first (with absolution) followed by the blessing, however, in the short form, the blessing comes first followed by the absolution. Why?

Is that the case? In the Roman Ritual, it doesn’t look like the words of sacramental absolution (from the sacrament of penance) come after the blessing. Does it in the current volume?

But, do you note that in the long form the confession and absolution come first only if the sick person needs or wants it? In other words if the sick person is in the state of grace, or recently went to confession, etc, etc. there is no need to have confession before the Apostolic Pardon. This supports the idea that the Pardon and the indulgence attached is directed to temporal punishment not guilt.

1. The final form given for “dire urgency” calls for only the Apostolic Blessing/Pardon but not the absolution. Again, Why?

In the 1964 Roman Ritual the “front matter” of the Apostolic Pardon, which includes sprinkling, prayers, the Confiteor, etc is done away with in the dire urgency. This speaks only to what is excised form the Apostolic Pardon. Sacramental absolution would still take place prior, if needed, and possible, I would think.

Here’s yet something else that makes it confusing:

However, it does continue with a quote from The new Instruction of September 26, 1964 #68 “When anointing of the sick and Viaticum are administered at the same time, …the rite is to be arranges as follows; …the priest hears the confession of the sick person, if necessary, then administers the anointing, and then gives Viaticum, omitting the sprinkling…and the Confiteor and absolution.”"If, however, the apostolic blessing with plenary indulgence at the hour of death is to be imparted on the same occasion, it takes place immediately before the anointing, omitting the sprinkling with its formulas and the Confiteor and absolution"Now, why would the absolution be omitted if the Apostolic Blessing is done?

I think I can clear this up. I believe that the “absolution” spoken of here is the “absolution” which follows the Confiteor. Just like the “absolution” in Mass.

Now follow the logical progression of Note 68:

1. All three rites – Anointing, Viaticum, and Apostolic Pardon – all have within them sprinkling, Confiteor and (general) absolution, so
2. If you administer Viaticum at the same time as Anointing you would omit the sprinking, Confiteor and absolution from the Viaticum, and
3. If you also administer the Apostolic Pardon would similarly omit that sprinking, Confiteor and absolution.

Basically note 68 is trying to get you not to repeat the sprinkling, Confiteor and absolution three times!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Again, I want to preface all of the following with a clear disclaimer that I am not the minister of the sacraments or rites as you are, nor do I have expertise in liturgical history. My training in sacramental theology is rudimentary. I offer the following as a ordinary laymen, attempting to help you clarify your thoughts on the matter.

Here is the clincher, I think, regarding the question of what the function of the Apostolic Pardon, the very first portion of the Rite says:

1. The apostolic blessing with plenary indulgence at the hour of death should be imparted, following the reception of the last sacraments, to those who desire it while still rational and conscious. It may likewise be granted to anyone who has given any indication of such desire, or who has seemed contrite before becoming unconscious or irrational. But it must be denied absolutely to the excommunicated, the impenitent, or those who die in patent mortal sin.

Why deny the Apostolic Pardon to those in mortal sin if it forgives sin?

Then see:

3.** If the sick person wishes to confess, the priest hears his confession and absolves him. **If not, he bids him make an act of contrition, and if time permits, briefly instructs him on the power and efficacy of this blessing.

Why does the Rite provide (in normal circumstances) for either Confession and sacramental absolution first and then the Apostolic Pardon OR just goes straight to the Pardon when there is no need to confess. It bolsters the notion that sacramental absolution and the Apostolic Pardon do two different things.

Furthermore:

    4. The priest consoles him, instilling confidence that by the divine bounty **he will receive remission of temporal punishment** and everlasting life.

Again, this restates the function of the Apostolic Pardon. The last bit “and everlasting life” doesn’t mean the revival of sanctifying grace because of the Apostolic Pardon, (since it follows the remission of temporal punishment in the sentence) but rather the immediate admission to everlasting life already merited by sanctifying grace already possessed.

What do you think?
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m realy not sure where to start, but here goes:

First, the easy one. I’m using a reprint of the 1964 Roman Ritual (Weller) single volume. It does appear to be word-for-word what appears in the web link from my first post here.

In reference to my #1
Here are the words from the Pardon/Blessing that cause me to wonder “And I, by the power given to me by the Holy See, grant you a plenary indulgence and remission of all sins.” Those were the words to which I was referring when I said that they seem to appear clearly. Do they?
Now, the plenary indulgence part is easy, it means exactly what it seems to mean, so I don’t think theres any need to discuss that part. But the words “and remission of all sins” is what causes me to think: is this a substitute formula for the words of sacramental absolution? On the one hand, they are not the required words “I absolve you…” but is there any difference between saying “I absolve” and “I grant remission of all sins” ? I realize that it isn’t the sacramental formula, but intellectually, I can’t see any difference between the two sentences. This is where I keep getting “stuck.”

My #2
What is the difference between “absolving” and “remitting all”?
I agree with what you say that they are distinct “moments” in the ritual, but what I don’t understand is what is the difference in terms of the actual definition of the words.

My #3
In answer to your question, yes, the words of absolution follow the Blessing in the short form (not the “dire urgency” form, but the “near death” form which is in the original paragraph #7). Even though the order is reversed in the long form; this likewise puzzles me.

Still in the long form, as you pointed-out auricular confession itself is optional, but it also says “if not he bids him make an act of contrition” (rite #3) but #6 says that the priest pronounces the words of absolution from the rite of confession (that’s the “May Almighty God etc” part–I cross referenced that just to be sure), but makes no reference to only doing this only IF auricular confession was made. You’re right that confession only comes if the person wants it, but oddly, absolution comes irregardless.

On my #4, here’s what you said “Sacramental absolution would still take place prior, if needed, and possible, I would think”
I would think that as well, but I was talking about the “dire emergency” form not the “danger of death” form. The danger of death form does have the words of sacramental absolution taken directly from the rite of confession, so the absolution here is a given. That’s the rite #7.

Here’s the “dire urgency form”
In dire urgency it suffices to say:
By the authority granted me by the Holy See, I impart to you a plenary indulgence and the remission of all your sins; and I bless you in the name of the Father…

Given that the “short form” is indeed so short, I can only suppose that “dire emergency” means that the person is literally taking his last breath. The short form takes only a few seconds, so if the priest feels that he doesn’t have time for the short form, “dire urgency” would be dire indeed. In that case, why omit the absolution in favor of the Apostolic Blessing? The only conclusion I can arive at is that somehow absolution subsists within the Blessing. That’s the only way I can understand why the Church would omit the outright absolution, and even omit the words “I absolve you” Here’s what I’m thinking. If the Church didn’t intend for it to absolve, the “dire urgency” form would read instead “…I impart to you…remission and absolution of all your sins…” Why not add the word absolution unless it is seen to be already there?

Now, onto note 68
The “absolution” referred to is actually the words taken right out of the rite of confession, and not the priest’s conclusion of the confiteor. I did cross-reference that one to be sure. Here’s a link to it
sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/27-the-sacrament-of-penance-absolution.html
I can see how that would seem to be the case because of the fact that it’s done after the confiteor, but the words are those from confession.

Your 1,2,3 at the end of the post did clear that one up for me. Of course, if you do all 4 on one occasion, you don’t repeat the parts that have already been done. That part at least, I finally understand. Couldn’t see the forest for the trees.

 

[AJV]

To add to VC’s excellent post (and reiterating the disclaimer) the words “remission of all sins” (or as in the revised rites “remission of all your sins”) is common for the cases of certain indulgences. Take for example, the Urbi et Orbi blessing every year in which the Pope anounces “Indulgentiam, absolutionem et remissionem ***omnium ***peccatorum vestrorum”. As many theologians were at pains to point out this phrasing was understood as the “poena” and not the “culpa” of sin.

Some theologians even held that it was sufficient in grave necessity for the valid administration of the Apostolic Blessing(as it was known then) to recite only “Benedicat te…” - May the Almighty God bless you, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These words are certainly not sufficient to absolve sacramentally - if they were then this theory could not have be held.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So if one is in a state of grace and receives the Apostolic Blessing–do they avoid purgatory and go straight to heaven or not?

 

[FrDavid96]

EUREKA!

CANCEL MY LAST POST

It’s too late for me to edit it.

I just realized where I’ve been going wrong.

The words “May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution, + and remission of your sins.” are the words used in the Apostolic Blessing after the confiteor.

THESE ARE NOT THE WORDS OF ABSOLUTION.

I misread it. These are the words from the confession rite which preceed the actual absolution. When the rite of the blessing said “May the almighty and merciful Lord etc.” I flipped to the page for confession and THOUGHT that it was referring to the words of absolution because I read it too quickly. Once I got that idea stuck in my head, I never re-visited it. The actual absolution starts off “May our Lord…” not “May the almighty and merciful Lord…”

VC: thanks so much. If I weren’t engaged in this conversation with you, I would never have gone through it and seen that huge mistake.

Also, AJV: thanks for pointing that out. That part as well makes sense to me now. “absolutionem et remissionem” obviously there IS a difference between absolution and remission, but I’ve never seen it until now.

…to be continued…

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I just realized where I’ve been going wrong.

The words “May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution, + and remission of your sins.” are the words used in the Apostolic Blessing after the confiteor.

THESE ARE NOT THE WORDS OF ABSOLUTION.

I misread it. These are the words from the confession rite which preceed the actual absolution. When the rite of the blessing said “May the almighty and merciful Lord etc.” I flipped to the page for confession and THOUGHT that it was referring to the words of absolution because I read it too quickly. Once I got that idea stuck in my head, I never re-visited it. The actual absolution starts off “May our Lord…” not “May the almighty and merciful Lord…”

VC: thanks so much. If I weren’t engaged in this conversation with you, I would never have gone through it and seen that huge mistake.

Father! You are welcome!

I thought maybe that was it, and that is why I mentioned that the “absolution” (which I put in quotes) was the general absolution that follows the Confiteor, just like at Mass and that it doesn’t absolve from mortal sin. Hope I wasn’t too annoyingly persistent on that.

(And I was all prepared to take up arms again until I saw your addendum! )

I’m glad we figured out part of it at least. I’ll look forward to your post, and to see your current thoughts.

VC

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So does a person in a state of grace who receives the Apostolic blessing avoid purgatory and go straight to heaven or not?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Take for example, the Urbi et Orbi blessing every year in which the Pope anounces “Indulgentiam, absolutionem et remissionem ***omnium ***peccatorum vestrorum”. As many theologians were at pains to point out this phrasing was understood as the “poena” and not the “culpa” of sin.

AJV,

Thank you for the compliment.

It is interesting that you the example you used was th Urbi et Orbi blessing. It is my impression that the Urbi et Orbi is actually THE Apostolic Blessing (or Pardon, or Benediction). In other words, that *Urbi et Orbi *blessing carries with it a plenary indulgence. The Pope has given the power to the Bishops (and others) to impart the same blessing on various occasions. Bishops have given the power to priests to impart the blessing when someone is in danger of death.

The unique thing about the Apostolic Pardon, with indulgence, in danger of death (in articulo mortis), I think, is that it attaches only upon the actual death of the person. This distinguishes it from the Apostolic Blessing generically (i.e. the Uri et Orbi and its derivatives) which can be received by all the faithful who are properly disposed, while still hale and living.

So, the language you pointed out in the *Urbi et Orbi *(i.e. *absolutionem et remissionem) *seems to be exactly on point, since it is the same blessing that we are actually discussing. (And, as you pointed out, no one thinks that the Urbi et Orbi forgives sins).

Ah, Roma!
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

So does a person in a state of grace who receives the Apostolic blessing avoid purgatory and go straight to heaven or not?

Jerry, everyone goes through Purgatory–it’s the doorway into heaven.

Other than that, all anyone can realy say is “we hope that’s the case.” The reason is that we can never presume on God’s judgment. The Holy Father has the Keys which Christ handed to Peter–no question about that. But when we get into the specifics about an individual person who has died, it’s still a mystery. It’s better to have that Blessing, but precisely how God Himself applies it is unknown to us.

All we can say is that we don’t know the details for certain but we have hope and faith, and leave it in God’s merciful hands.

 

[zab]

Jerry, everyone goes through Purgatory–it’s the doorway into heaven.

Other than that, all anyone can realy say is “we hope that’s the case.” The reason is that we can never presume on God’s judgment. The Holy Father has the Keys which Christ handed to Peter–no question about that. But when we get into the specifics about an individual person who has died, it’s still a mystery. It’s better to have that Blessing, but precisely how God Himself applies it is unknown to us.

All we can say is that we don’t know the details for certain but we have hope and faith, and leave it in God’s merciful hands.

…Which reminds me of a one frame cartoon that I saw in an old Saturday Evening Post Magazine. As I recall, St. Peter is standing at the Pearly Gates inviting a man in. The man responds, “But what about all my stuff” as he points to his U-Haul truck parked just outside the narrow gate.

 

[AJV]

AJV,

Thank you for the compliment.

It is interesting that you the example you used was th Urbi et Orbi blessing. It is my impression that the Urbi et Orbi is actually THE Apostolic Blessing (or Pardon, or Benediction). In other words, that *Urbi et Orbi *blessing carries with it a plenary indulgence. The Pope has given the power to the Bishops (and others) to impart the same blessing on various occasions. Bishops have given the power to priests to impart the blessing when someone is in danger of death.

Yes, that is in fact why I used that particular example. In my haste, I forgot to include the official English translation of the Apostolic Blessing which says “May the almighty and merciful Lord forgive you and free you from all your sins”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I guess what I was really asking is if a person has to have no attachment to any sin–which is a condition to receive a plenary indulgence normally-or if the apostolic pardon is special and that one doesn’t have to fulfill that condition?

In other words does the apostolic pardon remove temporal debt as much as Baptism does or as much as fullfilling the requirements for removal of temporal debt on Divine Mercy Sunday does?

Maybe we cannot be certain about such a thing but I suppose with a human faith and not a divine faith we might be pretty certain of the Divine Mercy Indulgence and certainly we can be certain that baptism does remove all temporal debt.

One thing should be clear though–if one receives all the Last Rites–if one receives the sacrament of confession–the eucharist–the annoiting of the sick–and the apostolic pardon–and is in a state of grace:

well all of that may not equal NO purgatory but wouldn’t it at least mean less purgatory?

Another question I have always had is this: to receive a plenary indulgence normally one has to be free of any attachment to sin–even venial sin.

Is it possible to be free from any attachment to sin–even venial sin–without having already achieved sainthood?

In other words can a non saint who is in a state of grace be free from any attachment to sin–even venial sin?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

FrDavid96:

Jerry, everyone goes through Purgatory–it’s the doorway into heaven.

Fr. David,

You mentioned this on another thread as well. Could you please elaborate?

Specifically, I think it might be important to know what you mean by 1)everyone, 2)through and 3) Purgatory.

Thank you!
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David,

You mentioned this on another thread as well. Could you please elaborate?

Specifically, I think it might be important to know what you mean by 1)everyone, 2)through and 3) Purgatory.

Thank you!
VC

I’m laughing here. I couldn’t imagine what you’re getting at, then it started to hit me what it is you’re getting at!

Ok. Everybody means everybody who is going to heaven (no, those going the other way don’t go through Purgatory!)

Everybody" would also exclude infants (who die without actual sin, and have no need to be purified of any actual sins). [let’s leave the discussion of infant deaths to another discussion though, take that last at “face value” just for the sake of this one paragraph]
And no, it does not include Christ or the Blessed Mother.
So, no, everybody does not mean everybody:thumbsup:

“Through” means that every adult going to heaven spends some “time” in purgatory. This is outside of time and space, so it can’t be measured in physical terms. I used “through” as a way of saying that purgatory is not a permanent place for anyone–everyone who is there will eventually get out of there and into heaven itself.

Purgatory: A final cleansing or purification before one enters heaven.

Jerry: still thinking on your post.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m laughing here. I couldn’t imagine what you’re getting at, then it started to hit me what it is you’re getting at!

I chuckled too. Just keeping you on your toes, Fr.!

Ok. Everybody means everybody who is going to heaven (no, those going the other way don’t go through Purgatory!)

Ok. Check.

Everybody" would also exclude infants

Check.

And no, it does not include Christ or the Blessed Mother.
So, no, everybody does not mean everybody:thumbsup:

Check and Check.

But, I still have a question about the following:

every adult going to heaven spends some “time” in purgatory.

Could you elaborate more on why you think this is the case? Upon what do you base that assertion? Do you draw this as a conclusion, or is this something we can find in other sources?

As always, thank you for the chat.
VC

 

[FrDavid96]

Could you elaborate more on why you think this is the case? Upon what do you base that assertion? Do you draw this as a conclusion, or is this something we can find in other sources?

As always, thank you for the chat.
VC

As for everyone needing purgatory: this is how I look at it. Given our fallen and frail human nature, it’s impossible for anyone to die in a state of absolute, complete, literally perfect Grace. All human beings die with some imperfections, even the most saintly ones are not truly perfect, so everyone (who’s going to heaven!) needs some purgation, even if that means just the most miniscule “amount.”
As for the truly great saints, well, perhaps they spent the equivalent of .001 nanoseconds in purgatory. That’s what I’m getting at, to say that no human being can die in a perfect state. Maybe even someone who dies at the very moment when baptism is complete still comits some microscopic venial sin at the moment of death. I’m just trying to say “no one’s perfect.”

(Now, you’ll want me to define “no one” and “perfect” right? Just kidding!)