Holy Annointing and Children

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Hi ya’ll,

In a recent blog post on the new theological movement,

author Reginald suggests young children “Before the age of reason” are not fit to the receive the holy mystery because they have not sinned. I was wondering how the east (Oriental and Byzantine) view this and what are the norms in your respective churches regarding Holy Anointing and children?

I posted the following to show how the Church in the east has not forgotten that the sacrament is also for spiritual healing, even going so far as to offer it liturgically during the fasting seasons of the church for assistance.

"Dear Reginald,

In the Byzantine tradition, the Church offers the Mystery of Holy Anointing during the great fasts of the church. This is primarily for the spiritual healing of the christian who during the fast is at most need of this for both the health of his soul and a fortification against the assaults of the enemy. Our parish celebrates it once during the Fast of the Nativity and again during the Great Fast of Lent.

As far as reason goes, I would think if a person were comatose, the Holy Anointing could still occur. Assuming this is true, I don’t see how it could be withheld from a child.

Was there ever a public celebration of the sacrament in the western church tied to any of the liturgical seasons?

• Carlos "

His response follows:

Carlos,
I’m not quite sure what the circumstances are in the case to which you are referring …
Certainly, no one can validly receive Anointing of the Sick if they are not seriously ill (or suffering from old age) – so, any notion of having everybody receive as a means of entering into the liturgical season cannot be correct.
[we should not be surprised if abuses exist in the East … Anointing Masses are often accompanied with many many abuses in the West]

Regarding whether a comatose person can receive … certainly yes.
Because he had the use of reason at some point, and he has committed some venial sin (which has already been forgiven, probably, but the wounds and remnants of which still remain) … hence he will benefit greatly, even though he does not have reason at the moment.

However, young children who have NEVER had the use of reason and have never sinned “are not fit subjects” of the Sacrament (as the Roman Catechism states so well), because they suffer not from the wounds of actual sin.

Hope that helps! +

Thanks!

 

[SonCatcher]

Apparently, he doesn’t know much about Ellen Organ (“Little Nellie”). She is reported to have received 5 sacraments before dying at age 4. Her life is supposed to have inspired Pope Pius X in opening Communion to 7-year-olds.

Given her age and gender, I’ll let you guess which sacraments she received.

She is outside the norm, naturally. However, this illustrates that the practice of withholding Anointing from the young is not absolute. It is a matter of canon law, not of doctrine. I suspect it has to do with the Western understanding of sin and death.

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Regarding SonCatcher’s reference to Little Nellie … there is a reply at the post from New Theological Movement:

"Carlos,
I see you posted our conversation over at the Catholic Answers Forum … there, someone brought up the example of Ellen Organ (aka Little Nellie), a very holy little girl who died at the age of 4 and receive Anointing – she inspired (it is said) Pius X to lower the age of communion.

The person who brought that up as a counter example to my post lacks all credibility and intellectual honesty … the whole point of Little Nellie is that she attained to the use of reason at an extremely young age (apparently by a special divine grace) … this is why she was allowed to receive her first communion on December 6 (well before her death on Feb 2).

Far from disproving my post, the story of Little Nellie PROVES MY POINT: If little Ellen Olsen had not yet attained to the use of reason she would not have been Anointed, however precisely because she reached the use of reason at a very young age, she was given the sacrament of Anointing before her death."

 

[SonCatcher]

Father,

I am flattered that you decided to create an account to respond to my post. I am, however, rather perturbed by Reginaldus’ response, which you quoted.

That I lack credibility is no surprise. That is why I cited Miss Organ’s situation as an example. This is not a totally unprecedented move. Jesus Himself discussed a situation where an exception to the law was made in order to contradict the Pharisees’ strict judgement based on the law.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 12:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

I take exception, to his assertion that I lack intellectual honesty, however. I did readily admit that her case was not the norm. Indeed, the fact that His Holiness reduced the age of reception to 7 (not 4 when Miss Organ first received) clearly illustrates that her example is not absolute. The age of 7 is still arbitrary, however, as certain children attain reason earlier and a few attain reason later (indeed, some who have severe issues with mental capacity never attain the use of reason but are like infants their entire lives).

Regardless, my purpose with my earlier composition was not to refute Reginaldus outright but to highlight an exception so that the OP (Little Boy Lost) wouldn’t fret too seriously about the strong arguments Reginaldus made.

The Catechism, when discussing who may receive says only the following:
(CCC 1514) The Anointing of the Sick “is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.”

I don’t see any particular lower limit on age or use of reason for reception in the Catechism (teaching).

I do, however, stand by Canon Law. Since the Magesterium has declared that use of reason is necessary for one to receive (Canon 1004.1), I fully respect and submit to their governance.

This law concerns the Latin rite only, however. Since the OP is concerned more with the Eastern churches (each of which has its own laws of governance), everything I have written is moot for his thread.

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

SonCatcher,
I think the point is that the very fact that Little Nellie is used as an example to promote lowering the age of communion is also itself a defense of the claims at NTM … at the age of 4 she could receive communion (outside even of danger of death) because she had the use of reason … for the same reason she is able to receive Anointing.
Hence, far from disproving the NTM article, her example (which, as you say, is outside the norm) actually proves the point – Anointing cannot be given to young children excepting in an entirely exceptional case like that of Little Nellie, where the child has attained to the use of reason at a very young age.

The point of the article at NTM is not that a child has to be 7, the point is that the child has to have attained the use of reason (and, hence, having commited some venial sin [cf. Roman Catechism on Anointing, cited at the end of the article at NTM], is a fit subject for Anointing).

 

[SonCatcher]

Father,

Thank you for clarifying the intent of the NTM post. In the meantime, I took the liberty of looking up Canon Law on the matter. In particular, I notice Canon 1005:
This sacrament is to be administered in a case of doubt whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, is dangerously ill, or is dead.

Now, I am not a Canon Lawyer, but it seems from my reading that if the priest has reason to suspect that a young child may have attained the use of reason, he should administer the sacrament. This is similar to the doctrine of reasonable doubt in American jurisprudence.

Indeed, it appears the priest is required to administer the sacrament if the person seems to be dead but he (the priest) has reason to suspect may still be alive.

 

[mardukm]

Forgive my ignorance, but are you folks taking about the Sacrament of Unction or the Sacrament of Confirmation?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Marduk,

The Mystery of Unction. Looking forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut!

• Carlos

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for the clarification, brother LittleBoyLost (Carlos?)

My initial reply:

I do not understand the rationale used by “Reginald.” The Sacrament of Unction is primarily for physical healing, and secondarily for spiritual healing. The primary Sacrament for spiritual healing is the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance, not Unction.

To refuse the Sacrament of Unction for the rational of “lack of use of reason” because a child is incapable of sin overthrows the patristic and scriptural understanding of the Sacrament.

I would suggest “Reginald” read the CCC and the documents of Vatican 2 on what the purpose of the Sacrament of Unction is. It is intended for the physically ill, and has no age limit. According to the CCC, restriction of the Sacrament to cases of grave illness is applicable only to the Latin Catholic Church, so the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches utilize the Sacrament as we have always done.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[5Loaves]

Canon Law on the matter. In particular, I notice Canon 1005:
This sacrament is to be administered in a case of doubt whether the sick person has attained the use of reason, is dangerously ill, or is dead.

Just a reminder you are quoting from the CIC
Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

 

[5Loaves]

Holy Anointing in the East does have a close tie to the Holy Mystery of Penance/Confession however you can see in this thread on another forum clergy saying for example “it is perfectly acceptable to give Anointing to an unconscious person”, and “As to whether someone comes to Confession before or after the Holy Oil - well, it is not up to us to worry about such a picayune matter.”

 

[mardukm]

I just thought of something.

It appears that the rationale behind the “use of reason” is not that the person cannot yet sin, but because the person must ask for it (and thus presumably understand what he/she is asking for). That certainly has a scriptural basis (“Is any among you sick? Let him call the elders of the church…”), so I can see the merit of it. I still find the “not able to sin” rationale mind-boggling, if not unacceptable.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

I just thought of something.

It appears that the rationale behind the “use of reason” is not that the person cannot yet sin, but because the person must ask for it (and thus presumably understand what he/she is asking for). That certainly has a scriptural basis (“Is any among you sick? Let him call the elders of the church…”), so I can see the merit of it. I still find the “not able to sin” rationale mind-boggling, if not unacceptable.

Blessings,
Marduk

In both codes there is the requirement to be in danger of death and contrite. Thus the age of reason holds as it does for the Mystern of Penance. And this requirement for attainment of the age of reason is the requirement in the Latin code Can. 1004, and is implied in the eastern code CCEO 737.1, using “sincerely contrite” and “freed from sins” and “disposed to ammend their life”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

In both codes there is the requirement to be in danger of death and contrite. Thus the age of reason holds as it does for the Mystern of Penance. And this requirement for attainment of the age of reason is the requirement in the Latin code Can. 1004, and is implied in the eastern code CCEO 737.1, using “sincerely contrite” and “freed from sins” and “disposed to ammend their life”.

The “danger of death” is not a requirement, unlike in the Latin code. Canon 740 dictates it is not a requirement for the Eastern/Oriental Churches, but is merely salutary:

Christian faithful who are gravely ill, who lack consciousness or the use of reason, are presumed to want this sacrament to be administered to them in danger of death or even at another time according to the judgment of the priest.

The same Canon affirms that in the Eastern/Oriental phrenoma, the “use of reason” is not a necessary element as it is in the Latin Tradition. In fact, the term “age of reason” is nowhere found in the Eastern Code as it pertains to Unction. Your citations from Canon 737 only applies to those who indeed have the capacity to sin, but they are not conditions for receiving the Sacrament. There is nothing on our Canons, unlike the Latin code, which would restrict the use of Unction to ONLY those who have a capacity to sin (and thus be forgiven).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[5Loaves]

In both codes there is the requirement to be in danger of death and contrite. Thus the age of reason holds as it does for the Mystern of Penance. And this requirement for attainment of the age of reason is the requirement in the Latin code Can. 1004, and is implied in the eastern code CCEO 737.1, using “sincerely contrite” and “freed from sins” and “disposed to ammend their life”.

737 §1. By the sacramental anointing of the sick with prayers of a priest, the Christian faithful who are gravely ill and sincerely contrite receive grace, by which, strengthened by the hope of eternal reward and absolved from sins, they are disposed to correct their lives and are helped in patiently enduring their infirmity and suffering.

You may see it implied but this code does not define the Mystery/Sacrament as limited to the gravely ill. It is most assuredly not seen as limited to the gravely ill in the East, although it certainly is administered privately in the instance of grave illness, just as it is in the Latin Church.

Additionally the celebration of the Holy Mystery of Unction which OP mentioned in the quote he gave in his first post in this thread refers to the liturgical service in which the Holy Mystery of Unction is offered to all present, during extensive Fasts. He mentions, for example, Great Lent where this is incorporated into Liturgy on Holy Wednesday. "However, the reception of the Mystery is not limited to those who are enduring physical illness." These liturgies are important times when we are each offered strengthening during the fasts by the Mystery of Unction.

P.S. I was interrupted while making this response. I see Marduk responded meanwhile. I clearly concur with his post.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The CCC has an extensive section on the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. The Sacrament is described in full, just as the other Sacraments are fully described in the CCC. There is no mention of age or attainment to the use of reason as essential to the Sacrament.

The Council of Trent fully described each of the Sacraments, leaving out nothing that was essential for a Sacrament to be valid. And again, there is no mention of age or attainment to the use of reason as essential to the Sacrament of Anointing.

The Catechism of Trent mentions attainment to the use of reason, but this is by way of discipline, not doctrine. To say otherwise is to imply that the Council of Trent and the CCC omitted something essential to a Sacrament. The Catechism of Trent was not an official document of the Council, but a magisterial document prepared later.

It is possible that the Council of Trent omitted something essential and unchangeable to the Sacrament of Anointing? The Council said: “Neither assuredly does the Roman Church, the Mother and Mistress of all other churches, observe aught [anything] in administering this unction, – as regards those things which constitute the substance of this sacrament, – but what blessed James has prescribed.” So all that the Church holds to be essential and unchangeable in the Sacrament is found in what Saint James taught. The Council rejected the idea that there are other conditions for the validity of this Sacrament, that is to say, essential and unchangeable conditions of the very substance of the Sacrament, other than those stated by James. So having reached the age of reason is changeable discipline, not unchangeable doctrine.

As for the expression in James, ‘let him call’, this does not indicate a requirement for the Sacrament, since even an unconscious person can receive the Sacrament (despite not being able to call for it). Also, if ‘let him call’ indicated an essential requirement, then why would Trent and the CCC omit any mention of what is essential to a Sacrament?

Reginaldus errs by confusing a point of discipline with unchangeable requirements for validity. He is basically saying that he understands something about a Sacrament that Trent and the CCC did not understand.

Also, on the example of Little Nellie, the attainment to the use of reason is not a sudden onset event. It does not occur all at once, as he assumes. Little children gradually increase their ability to reason, and so they gradually increase their ability to understand right from wrong and to possibly sin. The youngest children cannot sin, as the get older they become capable of slight venial sin, then greater venial sin, and only much later could they, as a possibility, commit mortal sin. So Nellie was not unique in being able to exercise reason to some extent. All 4 year olds can do so, to one extent or another. She may have been ahead of her peers in this regard, but any 4 year old can reason to some extent.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

Hi ya’ll,

In a recent blog post on the new theological movement,

author Reginald suggests young children “Before the age of reason” are not fit to the receive the holy mystery because they have not sinned. I was wondering how the east (Oriental and Byzantine) view this and what are the norms in your respective churches regarding Holy Anointing and children?

I posted the following to show how the Church in the east has not forgotten that the sacrament is also for spiritual healing, even going so far as to offer it liturgically during the fasting seasons of the church for assistance.

His response follows:

Thanks!

 

[John009]

The information about Holy Annointing and Children presented here will do one of two things: either it will reinforce what you know about Holy Annointing and Children or it will teach you something new. Both are good outcomes.
If you’ve picked some pointers about Holy Annointing and Children that you can put into action, then by all means, do so. You won’t really be able to gain any benefits from your new knowledge if you don’t use it.

Cheap Viagra - Generic viagra

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

The “danger of death” is not a requirement, unlike in the Latin code. Canon 740 dictates it is not a requirement for the Eastern/Oriental Churches, but is merely salutary:

Christian faithful who are gravely ill, who lack consciousness or the use of reason, are presumed to want this sacrament to be administered to them in danger of death or even at another time according to the judgment of the priest.

The same Canon affirms that in the Eastern/Oriental phrenoma, the “use of reason” is not a necessary element as it is in the Latin Tradition. In fact, the term “age of reason” is nowhere found in the Eastern Code as it pertains to Unction. Your citations from Canon 737 only applies to those who indeed have the capacity to sin, but they are not conditions for receiving the Sacrament. There is nothing on our Canons, unlike the Latin code, which would restrict the use of Unction to ONLY those who have a capacity to sin (and thus be forgiven).

Blessings,
Marduk

The phrase gravely ill is what I am referring to as danger of death, which does not mean immanent. When the sacrament is given: “the Christian faithful who are gravely ill and sincerely contrite receive grace”. If it is given without these conditions then one cannot be certain that grace is received.

 

[Vico]

You may see it implied but this code does not define the Mystery/Sacrament as limited to the gravely ill. It is most assuredly not seen as limited to the gravely ill in the East, although it certainly is administered privately in the instance of grave illness, just as it is in the Latin Church.

Additionally the celebration of the Holy Mystery of Unction which OP mentioned in the quote he gave in his first post in this thread refers to the liturgical service in which the Holy Mystery of Unction is offered to all present, during extensive Fasts. He mentions, for example, Great Lent where this is incorporated into Liturgy on Holy Wednesday. "However, the reception of the Mystery is not limited to those who are enduring physical illness." These liturgies are important times when we are each offered strengthening during the fasts by the Mystery of Unction.

P.S. I was interrupted while making this response. I see Marduk responded meanwhile. I clearly concur with his post.

The implication of the necessity of the age of reason, is the opinion of Very Rev. Marini, J.D., J.C.O.D., anyway, which I studied. (From Comparative Sacramental Discipline in the CCEO and CIC, 2003, CLSA). (Page 148.)

The limitation to the gravely ill is present. CCEO 740 means that the priest may decide whether and when to annoint an unconscious or irrational sick person who is not in danger of death. (Page 151, same reference.)

When administered to a group, penance requires the proper disposition and intention to confess later individually, any serious sins. (Per CCEO) So the Holy Wednesday ritual may be the sacrament of penance (based upon the intention) or a sacramental, rather than annointing of the sick.

The Orthodox do not agree on all aspects of the action of the Holy Spirit. In Catholic terms, some are sacraments and some are sacramentals.