Holy Annointing and Children

[Ron_Conte]

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.

There are two categories of persons who can validly receive this Sacrament: the seriously ill (even if they are not dying) and those near death. It is not necessary that a person have committed past sins, nor that a person be ill, in order to receive it. For the Blessed Virgin Mary never sinned. And due to her freedom from original sin in body as well as in soul, she never was ill or injured, nor did she suffer from the harm to good health caused by aging. Yet Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich tells us that Mary received Extreme Unction before her death. (She died, was raised from the dead, and then was assumed into Heaven, according to Munificentissimus Deus.)

“Peter, after he and the other Apostles had received Communion, brought Our Lady the Blessed Sacrament and administered extreme unction to her…. Peter approached her and gave her extreme unction, much in the way in which it is administered now.” (Emmerich, Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 370.)

So the claim that one must be physically ill, or that one must be spiritually ill, or that one must have committed some actual sins in the past, is not correct.

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

I hate to continue this discussion, with “Mardukm” stating that the Catechism of the Catholic Church AND Vatican II hold that Anointing is primarily for physical healing … not so, it is clear from both that Anointing is principally for spiritual healing (healing of the remains of actual sin, as the Roman Catechism of Trent puts it) and that physical healing is sometimes granted as a means to assisting spiritual healing.

• The Code of Canon Law states that the person must have attained the use of reason.
• The Catechism of Trent (ie. Roman Catechism) states that children have no need of the sacrament since they have not committed any sins.
• The Council of Trent states that Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick) is the continuation of Penance – both of the Sacrament of Penance (i.e. Reconciliation) and of the life of penance which we impose upon ourselves out of sorrow for sin. [hence, a child without the use of reason cannot receive Anointing, as he has not committed any sins on account of which he might do penance or go to Confession]
• Even the Easter Code of Canon Law (as has been pointed out by many) requires that the recipient be contrite for sins … hence, connecting Anointing with the healing of the wounds of actual sins.

Surely, if someone is willing to ignore and dismiss the Roman Catechism, they will dismiss NTM.
If they refuse to admit the teaching of Trent, they will refuse NTM.
If they twist about the teachings of the current Catechism and of Canon Law (of both east and west), we can hardly hope that they will give an honest hearing to the article on NTM.

But anyone who is of good will can see that Anointing is for those who have committed actual sins.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

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. ]

I do not think the Anointing is necessitated for children. Peerhaps r the person is a teenager it would help/ but, how can children seriously sin to receive the Anointing?

 

[Vico]

There are two categories of persons who can validly receive this Sacrament: the seriously ill (even if they are not dying) and those near death. It is not necessary that a person have committed past sins, nor that a person be ill, in order to receive it. For the Blessed Virgin Mary never sinned. And due to her freedom from original sin in body as well as in soul, she never was ill or injured, nor did she suffer from the harm to good health caused by aging. Yet Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich tells us that Mary received Extreme Unction before her death. (She died, was raised from the dead, and then was assumed into Heaven, according to Munificentissimus Deus.)

“Peter, after he and the other Apostles had received Communion, brought Our Lady the Blessed Sacrament and administered extreme unction to her…. Peter approached her and gave her extreme unction, much in the way in which it is administered now.” (Emmerich, Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 370.)

So the claim that one must be physically ill, or that one must be spiritually ill, or that one must have committed some actual sins in the past, is not correct.

But the priests are to follow the canons of their Church sui iuris in administering this Holy Mystery, which state who it is for:

CIC

Can. 1004 §1 The anointing of the sick can be administered to any member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger of death by reason of illness or old age. §2 This sacrament can be repeated if the sick person, having recovered, again becomes seriously ill or if, in the same illness, the danger becomes more serious.
Can. 1005 If there is any doubt as to whether the sick person has reached the age of reason, or is dangerously ill, or is dead, this sacrament is to be administered.
Can. 1006 This sacrament is to be administered to the sick who, when they were in possession of their faculties, at least implicitly asked for it.
**Can. 1007 The anointing of the sick is not to be conferred upon those who obstinately persist in a manifestly grave sin. **

CCEO

Canon 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. 2. In the Churches in which it is the custom that the sacrament of anointing of the sick be administered by several priests, it should be seen to inasmuch as it is possible that this custom is preserved.
   Canon 740
   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.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I hate to continue this discussion, with “Mardukm” stating that the Catechism of the Catholic Church AND Vatican II hold that Anointing is primarily for physical healing … not so, it is clear from both that Anointing is principally for spiritual healing (healing of the remains of actual sin, as the Roman Catechism of Trent puts it) and that physical healing is sometimes granted as a means to assisting spiritual healing.

• The Code of Canon Law states that the person must have attained the use of reason.
• The Catechism of Trent (ie. Roman Catechism) states that children have no need of the sacrament since they have not committed any sins.
• The Council of Trent states that Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick) is the continuation of Penance – both of the Sacrament of Penance (i.e. Reconciliation) and of the life of penance which we impose upon ourselves out of sorrow for sin. [hence, a child without the use of reason cannot receive Anointing, as he has not committed any sins on account of which he might do penance or go to Confession]
• Even the Easter Code of Canon Law (as has been pointed out by many) requires that the recipient be contrite for sins … hence, connecting Anointing with the healing of the wounds of actual sins.
  …]
  But anyone who is of good will can see that Anointing is for those who have committed actual sins.

The requirement of age or of attaining the use of reason is stated in Canon Law, and in the Roman Catechism, but not at all by Trent or the CCC. This omission indicates that the requirement is of discipline, not doctrine.

The Council of Trent did not teach that Extreme Unction (Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick) is solely, or even mainly, a completion of the Sacrament of Penance (Confession). The Council regarded Extreme Unction as “the completion, not only of penance, but also of the whole Christian life, which ought to be a perpetual penance.” If the Sacrament were solely a completion of Penance [Confession], then actual sin would be necessary to receive it, just as actual sin is necessary to receive Confession. But the Council teaches that the Sacrament is not solely a completion of the Sacrament of Confession, but of the whole Christian life. Therefore, actual sin is not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament.

On the claim that only persons who have committed actual sins may receive this Sacrament, the Epistle of James says this: “And a prayer of faith will save the infirm, and the Lord will alleviate him. And if he has sins, these will be forgiven him.” (James 5:15). This verse is also cited by Trent. Notice that the verse does not present sins as essential for the reception of this Sacrament. James says “if he has sins”, then these sins will be forgiven. If he does not have sins, he is not thereby prohibited from receiving the Sacrament. For the Sacrament, according to this Epistle and the Council of Trent, is not solely a remedy for sin and its wounds, but is also a blessing from the Lord to alleviate, and even at times heal, the sick. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach that only those with actual sins may validly receive this Sacrament, nor does the CCC teach that the sole purpose of the Sacrament is to remedy sin and its wounds.

Reginaldus’ narrowing of the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick solely to those who have physical illness AND spiritual illness AND wounds caused by actual sin does not agree with the full purpose of the Sacrament, as described by Trent and the CCC.

 

[Ron_Conte]

But the priests are to follow the canons of their Church sui iuris in administering this Holy Mystery, which state who it is for…

Yes, priests are to follow the discipline of the Church, and the applicable Canons, but this is discipline, not doctrine. The article at NTM argues that attainment to the age of reason is essential and unchangeable to the Sacrament, beyond even the ability and authority of the Church to change.

 

[Vico]

Yes, priests are to follow the discipline of the Church, and the applicable Canons, but this is discipline, not doctrine. The article at NTM argues that attainment to the age of reason is essential and unchangeable to the Sacrament, beyond even the ability and authority of the Church to change.

The Church has decided to administer this sacrament only to those than can sin.

“Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up.”

Council of Trent, Fourteenth Session, Chapter II: On the Effect of this Sacrament.
Moreover the thing signified and the effect of this sacrament are explained in those words; And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him. For the thing here signified is the grace of the Holy Ghost; whose anointing cleanses away sins, if there be any still to be expiated, as also the remains of sins; and raises up and strengthens the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him a great confidence in the divine mercy; whereby the sick being supported, bears more easily the inconveniences and pains of his sickness; and more readily resists the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel; and at times obtains bodily health, when expedient for the welfare of the soul.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html

CCC 1520 A particular gift of the Holy Spirit. The first grace of this sacrament is one of strengthening, peace and courage to overcome the difficulties that go with the condition of serious illness or the frailty of old age. This grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who renews trust and faith in God and strengthens against the temptations of the evil one, the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death.135 This assistance from the Lord by the power of his Spirit is meant to lead the sick person to healing of the soul, but also of the body if such is God’s will.136 Furthermore, "if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."137

 

[ciero]

The Church has decided to administer this sacrament only to those than can sin.

“Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up.”

Council of Trent, Fourteenth Session, Chapter II: On the Effect of this Sacrament.
Moreover the thing signified and the effect of this sacrament are explained in those words; And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him. For the thing here signified is the grace of the Holy Ghost; whose anointing cleanses away sins, if there be any still to be expiated, as also the remains of sins; and raises up and strengthens the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him a great confidence in the divine mercy; whereby the sick being supported, bears more easily the inconveniences and pains of his sickness; and more readily resists the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel; and at times obtains bodily health, when expedient for the welfare of the soul.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html

CCC 1520 A particular gift of the Holy Spirit. The first grace of this sacrament is one of strengthening, peace and courage to overcome the difficulties that go with the condition of serious illness or the frailty of old age. This grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who renews trust and faith in God and strengthens against the temptations of the evil one, the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death.135 This assistance from the Lord by the power of his Spirit is meant to lead the sick person to healing of the soul, but also of the body if such is God’s will.136 Furthermore, "if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."137

I don’t know why…but for some reason I thought we were on the EASTERN CATHOLIC FORUM…why Trent and all this Latin canon law is being thrown around I have no idea. When will Latin Catholics realize that we Easterners see things a little differently?

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

@Ciero, if you do not recognize Trent as an Ecumenical Council (and the Catechism of Trent as a guide for all Christians of both East and West) then I’m not sure why you are in the Eastern CATHOLICISM Forum … if you are Catholic, then you simply must accept Trent … and the point about the CIC is that it agrees with the CCEO …

To all: The Catholic Encyclopedia summarized the position quite nicely…

“Extreme Unction may be validly administered only to Christians who have had the use of reason and who are in danger of death from sickness. That the subject must be baptized is obvious, since all the sacraments, besides baptism itself, are subject to this condition. This is implied in the text of St. James: “Is any man sick among you?” i.e. any member of the Christian community; and tradition is so clear on the subject that it is unnecessary to delay in giving proof. It is not so easy to explain on internal grounds why extreme unction must be denied to baptized infants who are sick or dying, while confirmation, for instance, may be validly administered to them; but such is undoubtedly the traditional teaching and practice. Except to those who were capable of penance extreme unction has never been given. If we assume, however, that the principal effect of extreme unction is to give, with sanctifying grace or its increase, the right to certain actual graces for strengthening and comforting and alleviating the sick person in the needs and temptations which specially beset him in a state of dangerous illness, and that the other effects are dependent on the principal, it will be seen that for those who have not attained, and will not attain, the use of reason till the sickness has ended in death or recovery, the right in question would be meaningless, whereas the similar right bestowed with the character in confirmation may, and normally does, realize its object in later life. It is to be observed in regard to children, that no age can be specified at which they cease to be incapable of receiving extreme unction. If they have attained sufficient use of reason to be capable of sinning even venially, they may certainly be admitted to this sacrament, even though considered too young according to modern practice to receive their First Communion; and in cases of doubt the unction should be administered conditionally. Those who have always been insane or idiotic are to be treated in the same way as children; but anyone who has ever had the use of reason, though temporarily delirious by reason of the disease or even incurable insane, is to be given the benefit of the sacrament in case of serious illness.”

Now, I know that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible … but I do think it would be a bit bold to accuse NTM of “making things up” … after all, they are only following the general consensus of the theologians and Doctors [which is attested to also by the Roman Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as the Canon Law of BOTH East and West]

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Roman Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Canon Law of both East and West, all put together, are not sufficient to establish having reached the age of reason or having committed personals sins as essential for validity. For to hold such an opinion, one would have to assert also that something essential to the validity of a Sacrament was omitted by the Council of Trent, and by all other Ecumenical Councils, and also omitted by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

My posts in this thread establish that it is a** tenable theological position** that the criteria of having reached the age of reason and of having committed some personal sins are not essential to the Sacrament; they are discipline, not doctrine. For although Trent and the CCC mention the Sacrament as a remedy for sin, they do not establish that purpose as the sole or even the main effect.

And what is more important, Trent positively states that: “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. And he does not make the age of reason or sin a necessity. He only says ‘if’ the person has sins, then they will be forgiven.

The Council of Florence stated: “The fifth sacrament is extreme unction. Its matter is olive oil blessed by a priest. This sacrament should not be given to the sick unless death is expected.” (Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 November 1439, Pope Eugenius presiding). And yet the CCC allows other types of oil. And the Church currently permits those with serious illness to receive the Sacrament, even if death is not expected. So Florence was stating a discipline, one that has in fact changed. Similarly, the Roman Catechism and other sources are stating a discipline.

My position is that the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick can be received validly by any of the baptized faithful, if they are seriously ill OR near death, even if the person has not sinned, even if the person has not reached the age of reason due to age or mental disability. However, current discipline does prevail. I am simply stating what is essential for validity for the Sacrament.

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

RonConte,
If we are discussing what are tenable theological positions, I am certainly open to a charitable debate.
In that case, I will rely on the very explicit teaching of the Roman Catechism. Though, of course, I would not hold that one is in “grave doctrinal error” for disagreeing.

If it is possible to debate whether the age of reason is necessary for Anointing, then it is certainly possible for NTM to hold for the position maintained in the Roman Catechism, the Catholic Encyclopedia and by the majority of theologians (St. Thomas, most notably).

However, you have stated (on your blog) that Reginaldus is in “grave doctrinal error” and that the claim is “bizarre” … that doesn’t sound like someone trying to have a charitable discussion.
You have gone too far … claiming that the teaching in the Roman Catechism and that in the Cath Encyclopedia is not a valid option. (again, you state that it is “bizarre” and a “grave error”)

NTM is certainly safe to hold to those sources and to reproduce their claims, which have never been repudiated and, in fact, seem to be supported by the Canon Law of both East and West and by the Introduction to the Rite of Anointing approved by Paul VI.

Also, I have a hard time understanding what St. Peter would have meant by Anointing the Blessed Virgin with the words: “Through this holy unction and His own most tender mercy may the Lord pardon thee whatever sins or faults thou hast committed [quidquid deliquisti] by sight [by hearing, smell, taste, touch, walking, carnal delectation]” (as was the Rite at the time of Bl. Emmerich)
I do not doubt the veracity of the vision, I only say that we have to be careful about how to interpret it … surely, Bl. Emmerich would be scandalized to hear that someone would reject the Roman Catechism and cite her as a source!

 

[Vico]

I don’t know why…but for some reason I thought we were on the EASTERN CATHOLIC FORUM…why Trent and all this Latin canon law is being thrown around I have no idea. When will Latin Catholics realize that we Easterners see things a little differently?

Can’t figure it out, huh. You do not like law CIC or CCEO.

 

[SonCatcher]

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

Yes, I am aware I gave the disclosure in a previous post but did not think to repeat it. The original article referenced discussed the Latin Rite and I was pointing out how even so it was too rigorous.

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t know why…but for some reason I thought we were on the EASTERN CATHOLIC FORUM…why Trent and all this Latin canon law is being thrown around I have no idea. When will Latin Catholics realize that we Easterners see things a little differently?

My bad. I was trying to address what I perceived to be an excessive interpretation of the Latin law while recognizing the irrelevance per this forum. It got kind of out of hand.

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

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.

Of course, if there is reason to think that the child has the use of reason, the priest is to give Anointing … there is nothing in the NTM post which would disagree with that … I don’t see how you can claim that the article is too strict … it wasn’t about how to tell WHETHER a child has reached the use of reason, it was about WHY a child without the use of reason would not receive Anointing.

The CCOE is even more explicit: the individual must be contrite for sins, which means they must have attained the use of reason and have committed at least some venial sin (and we can presume at least venial sins of omission even in children who have the use of reason).

If anything the theology is even more clear in the discipline of the Eastern Rites!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

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.

And there is the stark difference. Canon 740 plainly indicates that in the Eastern/Oriental phrenoma, “gravely ill” is not equivalent to “danger of death.” Such a distinction is absent in the Latin code. In the Eastern/Oriental Tradition, one does not need to be in “danger of death” to receive Unction (see canon 738).

Further, I will repeat - the condition of “the age of reason” is wholly absent from our Code. This indicates that when Canon 737 mentions a “contrite heart” it is merely referring to an instance of the use of Unction - and very likely the most general instance - not a condition for the use of Unction.

As brother Ciero noted, we shouldn’t be trying to impose Latin premises into our Code, when the very explicit absence of those premises is rather stark, telling, and rather speaks for itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Do any eastern councils speak about the holy mystery of unction. I’d be curious to see what they say.

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Dear brother Vico,

And there is the stark difference. Canon 740 plainly indicates that in the Eastern/Oriental phrenoma, “gravely ill” is not equivalent to “danger of death.” Such a distinction is absent in the Latin code. In the Eastern/Oriental Tradition, one does not need to be in “danger of death” to receive Unction (see canon 738).

Further, I will repeat - the condition of “the age of reason” is wholly absent from our Code. This indicates that when Canon 737 mentions a “contrite heart” it is merely referring to an instance of the use of Unction - and very likely the most general instance - not a condition for the use of Unction.

As brother Ciero noted, we shouldn’t be trying to impose Latin premises into our Code, when the very explicit absence of those premises is rather stark, telling, and rather speaks for itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, you keep talking about “imposing Latin premises onto Eastern Law” … but I don’t think you have any idea what the so-called “Latin premises” are … In fact, in this particular case, the Eastern Law is more explicit than the Latin Law! If anything, I should want to impose the Eastern Law onto the Latin Law – in the sense that the Eastern Law is much clearer.

1st - Whatever you may say, CCOE 737.1 explicitly mentions BOTH physical and spiritual illness: “gravely ill” and “sincerely contrite”. To simply ignore this fact is to do injustice the CCOE.
In this regard, the CCOE is more clear than the CIC, since the CCOE explicitly mentions the connection with contrition for sins (which is only implicit in the CIC).

2nd - CCOE 740 is again even more explicit and clear than the CIC. It specifies that the individual must be “gravely ill” but that this death does not need to be utterly immanent … hence it states that even if they are not “in danger of death” … Neither does the Latin Church require that the person be in immediate danger of death, but she does require “serious illness”.
The CCOE likewise requires that the person be “gravely ill” – They receive the sacrament “whenever they are gravely ill”.

The main point is this: CCOE 737.1 (which speaks of grave illness and contrition) does not offer simply possible examples of when the Sacrament might be given … it is defining the circumstances needed for the sacrament.

Find a single Church Father (East or West) or a single Ecumenical Council which advocates giving Anointing of the Sick to someone who is either not gravely ill or to children who lack the use of reason … otherwise, stop with this nonsense of “oh, big bad West is imposing their beliefs on little ol’ East!”

 

[ciero]

Can’t figure it out, huh. You do not like law CIC or CCEO.

They both stink! The CCEO is a Latinization in the worst sense. Written by Rome and imposed on us. Stinks! Taking law out of our bishops hands and having Rome decree just smacks of Uniatism in the worst way. When are we going to just start thumbing our noses at Rome and start living as real sister churches in communion with each other, but taking command of our own destinies?

 

[dvdjs]

When are we going to just start thumbing our noses at Rome and start living as real sister churches in communion with each other, but taking command of our own destinies?

Have you ever had a committed relationship? Thumbing one’s nose, and seeking to command destiny is a poor mentality to cultivate one. Perhaps you just made a bad choice of words, and meant something else.