Holy Annointing and Children

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Ryan,

I suspected what the Latin premises are, and you have validated it. I, as a non-Latin, according to the Tradition of my Church, do not see Canon 737 as a condition. You, as a Latin do, but the CCEO is not for you. Canon 740 indicates that those who are gravely ill and who lack the use of reason can receive the Sacrament if they are in danger of death. This would include children who are not of the age of reason.

Also, according to Canon 740, our priests can administer Unction to those “gravely ill who lack the use of reason” even when they are not in danger of death, according to the judgment of the priest. This has always been the practice of our Churches, borne of our unique, non-Latin spiritual perspective. This Canon enshrines our Tradition, as it should.

Your interpretation is that of a Latin, not of an Eastern or Oriental, so, with all due respect, it has no place in the application and proper understanding of our Canons.

Humbly,
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!”

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Marduk et al.,
You can go on and on about how the East has its own unique way of things …

Still, show a single case of a Father (of East or West) advocating your view of Anointing of the Sick.
Show a single Council advocating your view.
Show a single shred of evidence from your history that Anointing is to be given either to children who have not yet attained reason or to people who are not seriously ill.

If you cannot point to a clear case of a Father or Council stating that Anointing is to be given to people who are not sick and also to children who have not the use of reason, then stop this nonsense of “We in the East” … WHO in the East?! …

In any case … I suppose you should at least accept the Letter of St. James (it shouldn’t be too “Western” for you) – “Is any man SICK among you?..”

 

[Vico]

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

1. According to Ordo unctionis infirmorum eorumque pastoralis curae, Praenotanda, nn. 8 and 11 and Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, p. 416, CCEO 737 gravely ill means in at least some danger of death, however remote, by reason of illness or even old age. The old Latin requirement which in some places crept into the eastern churches, is no longer used in the Latin Church, which required one to be at the point of or near death. (The sacrament was renamed from Extreme Unction to Annointing of the Sick.)

The priest decides when to annoint *for *the gravely ill that are irrational or unconscious but are not in the danger of death, being unable to do so themselves. (CCEO 740)

1. That the attainment of the age of reason is necesary to receive the grace of this Holy Mystery is implied in the eastern code CCEO 737.1 with the phrases “sincerely contrite” and “freed from sins” and “disposed to ammend their life”. This is stated on page 148 of Comparitive Sacramental Discipline In The CCEO and CIC, where CCEO 737.1 is compared to CIC 1004.1.

Below are are all of the eastern canons on it.

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 738
   The Christian faithful freely receive anointing of the sick whenever they are gravely ill; pastors of souls and persons who are close to the sick are to see to it that they are supported by this sacrament at an opportune time.
   Canon 739
2. All priests, and only priests, validly administer the anointing of the sick. 2. The administration of the anointing of the sick belongs to the pastor, parochial vicar and to all other priests for those persons committed to their care in virtue of their office; any priest can licitly administer this sacrament with at least the presumed permission of those mentioned, indeed, in case of necessity he must do so.
   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.
   Canon 741
   The oil to be used in the sacrament of anointing the sick ought to be blessed, even by the priest himself who administers the sacrament, unless the particular law of the Church sui iuris determines otherwise.
   Canon 742
   The words, order and manner of anointing are to be carefully carried out according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books; however, in case of necessity only the anointing with the proper formula suffices.

 

[ciero]

Marduk et al.,
You can go on and on about how the East has its own unique way of things …

Still, show a single case of a Father (of East or West) advocating your view of Anointing of the Sick.
Show a single Council advocating your view.
Show a single shred of evidence from your history that Anointing is to be given either to children who have not yet attained reason or to people who are not seriously ill.

If you cannot point to a clear case of a Father or Council stating that Anointing is to be given to people who are not sick and also to children who have not the use of reason, then stop this nonsense of “We in the East” … WHO in the East?! …

In any case … I suppose you should at least accept the Letter of St. James (it shouldn’t be too “Western” for you) – “Is any man SICK among you?..”

Boy sounds like we have become protestants here…quoting proof texts and all!!

I appeal to Holy Tradition! At least in the East…every baptized Christian regardless of age or reason have been given the anointing of the sick, weather on Holy Wednesday or at any other time.

 

[Vico]

In post one reception of the Mystery of Holy Anointing during the great fasts was mentioned:

…

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.
…

It is the praxis of the Orthodox that those receiving the Mystery of Holy Anointing on Wednesday receive Holy Communion on Holy Thursday, and it is normally required that one go to Confession before receiving the Mystery of Holy Anointing.

Confession, if possible, prior to reception, is also the praxis of the Latin Church.

 

[5Loaves]

In post one reception of the Mystery of Holy Anointing during the great fasts was mentioned:

It is the praxis of the Orthodox that those receiving the Mystery of Holy Anointing on Wednesday receive Holy Communion on Holy Thursday, and it is normally required that one go to Confession before receiving the Mystery of Holy Anointing.

It is the practice in the East to receive the Holy Mystery of Penance prior to Holy Eucharist. Of course our children from infancy on receive Eucharist. Likewise before Holy Anointing adults would go for Holy Mystery of Penance.

Confession, if possible, prior to reception, is also the praxis of the Latin Church.

In my experience the faithful of the Latin Church, with some exceptions certianly, go to the Sacrament of Confession monthly or less often. I’m not sure what “if possible” means. In my experience any Latin parish where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered at least weekly also has weekly confession scheduled, as well as usually available by appointment. Some places like our local cathedral offer daily confession.

 

[Vico]

It is the practice in the East to receive the Holy Mystery of Penance prior to Holy Eucharist. Of course our children from infancy on receive Eucharist. Likewise before Holy Anointing adults would go for Holy Mystery of Penance.

In my experience the faithful of the Latin Church, with some exceptions certianly, go to the Sacrament of Confession monthly or less often. I’m not sure what “if possible” means. In my experience any Latin parish where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered at least weekly also has weekly confession scheduled, as well as usually available by appointment. Some places like our local cathedral offer daily confession.

Prior to Holy Anointing.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Marduk et al.,
You can go on and on about how the East has its own unique way of things …

Still, show a single case of a Father (of East or West) advocating your view of Anointing of the Sick.
Show a single Council advocating your view.
Show a single shred of evidence from your history that Anointing is to be given either to children who have not yet attained reason or to people who are not seriously ill.

If you cannot point to a clear case of a Father or Council stating that Anointing is to be given to people who are not sick and also to children who have not the use of reason, then stop this nonsense of “We in the East” … WHO in the East?! …

In any case … I suppose you should at least accept the Letter of St. James (it shouldn’t be too “Western” for you) – “Is any man SICK among you?..”

I have provided a thorough theological argument in my posts above, based on what the Council of Trent and the CCC teach, which you have ignored. It is you who has not provided a single Council stating that this Sacrament cannot be given to young children (as doctrine, not as discipline). Trent says no such thing.

A single case? – The Blessed Virgin Mary receive Extreme Unction, despite having no sins and no sickness, according to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (in a book that has the Imprimatur from various Bishops as the book was published in various nations/lanuages over many years: The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 370).

Also, you continue to assume that the use of reason is a sudden onset event, as if children prior to the age of above 7 have zero use of reason – even though they can talk, read and write, understand (to some extent) wrong from right, and express love – all prior to the point at which you claim reason is suddenly given to them. If young children can commit at least some slight venial sins, then according your own reasoning they should be given the Sacrament.

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

RonConte,
There you go again …
Yes, I am well aware of the fact that the Revelations to Bl Emmerich has an imprimatur … so does the Roman Catechism (of Trent).

Regarding whether or not “the age of reason” and “attaining to the use of reason” is legitimate language … do you really think that the Fathers and Doctors and theologians and saints and writers of Canon Law are all complete idiots? I know that you think you are very smart, but are you really smarter than all of them?
Shall we utterly throw-out every reference in Canon Law and in Ecumenical Councils and in the Roman Catechism of Trent and in the current Catechism and in all the theology books and writings of the saints – every reference to “age of reason” and “coming to the use of reason”, etc.?!

Do you really think that such greats as St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and Bl. John Paul II (who promulgated the CIC) have no understanding of human development? Are they really so stupid?!

Of course children come to the use of reason gradually … still, there must be some first act that is self-cognizant (and this is the first truly rational act) and there must be some point where we can say that the child has sufficient use of reason to be able to make morally significant decisions.
The Church (today) thinks that this is generally around the age of 7 [as a priest, who has heard many first confessions, I can personally attest to the Church’s wisdom] …

The NTM article does not specify any age as the “age of reason”, but only speaks about “young children” who “have not yet attained to the use of reason” … you’re beef is not with me, but with the Church, her Fathers and Doctors, her theologians (even of today), her Canon Law, her CCC, her Popes …

What the NTM article has presented is entirely within the MAGISTERIAL teaching of the Church (recall that the Roman Catechism is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium) … [Ludwig Ott (who is a reliable source in judging magisterial teachings) thinks it is certain (sent. certa) that young children cannot receive because they have not yet sinned]

In any case, this is a thread related to EASTERN Catholicism … are you here to discuss the practice in the East and the Eastern Code of Canon Law, or just to grind an axe against NTM?

 

[ciero]

RonConte,
There you go again …
Yes, I am well aware of the fact that the Revelations to Bl Emmerich has an imprimatur … so does the Roman Catechism (of Trent).

Regarding whether or not “the age of reason” and “attaining to the use of reason” is legitimate language … do you really think that the Fathers and Doctors and theologians and saints and writers of Canon Law are all complete idiots? I know that you think you are very smart, but are you really smarter than all of them?
Shall we utterly throw-out every reference in Canon Law and in Ecumenical Councils and in the Roman Catechism of Trent and in the current Catechism and in all the theology books and writings of the saints – every reference to “age of reason” and “coming to the use of reason”, etc.?!

Do you really think that such greats as St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and Bl. John Paul II (who promulgated the CIC) have no understanding of human development? Are they really so stupid?!

Of course children come to the use of reason gradually … still, there must be some first act that is self-cognizant (and this is the first truly rational act) and there must be some point where we can say that the child has sufficient use of reason to be able to make morally significant decisions.
The Church (today) thinks that this is generally around the age of 7 [as a priest, who has heard many first confessions, I can personally attest to the Church’s wisdom] …

The NTM article does not specify any age as the “age of reason”, but only speaks about “young children” who “have not yet attained to the use of reason” … you’re beef is not with me, but with the Church, her Fathers and Doctors, her theologians (even of today), her Canon Law, her CCC, her Popes …

What the NTM article has presented is entirely within the MAGISTERIAL teaching of the Church (recall that the Roman Catechism is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium) … [Ludwig Ott (who is a reliable source in judging magisterial teachings) thinks it is certain (sent. certa) that young children cannot receive because they have not yet sinned]

In any case, this is a thread related to EASTERN Catholicism … are you here to discuss the practice in the East and the Eastern Code of Canon Law, or just to grind an axe against NTM?

Do me a favor and take your Trent and the rest of your Latin baggage somewhere else…(like maybe somewhere that they might give a rats behind about it)!!

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Do me a favor and take your Trent and the rest of your Latin baggage somewhere else…(like maybe somewhere that they might give a rats behind about it)!!

Ciero, your issue is with the CCOE (as you have made clear) … also, if you think that the Ecumenical Council of Trent is nothing more than “Latin baggage” about which you don’t “give a rat’s behind”, then you are clearly NOT Catholic at heart.
This is a forum for Eastern CATHOLICISM … take your hate-speech somewhere else (yes, it is hate-speech to compare a divinely inspired Ecumenical Council no better than the rear end of a rodent – you are worse than most Protestants, at least they wouldn’t use vulgarities).

[also, I’m still waiting for words from an Eastern Father or an Eastern Council which recommend giving Anointing of the Sick to young children or to those who are not sick … perhaps you don’t know your own tradition]

 

[ciero]

Ciero, your issue is with the CCOE (as you have made clear) … also, if you think that the Ecumenical Council of Trent is nothing more than “Latin baggage” about which you don’t “give a rat’s behind”, then you are clearly NOT Catholic at heart.
This is a forum for Eastern CATHOLICISM … take your hate-speech somewhere else (yes, it is hate-speech to compare a divinely inspired Ecumenical Council no better than the rear end of a rodent – you are worse than most Protestants, at least they wouldn’t use vulgarities).

[also, I’m still waiting for words from an Eastern Father or an Eastern Council which recommend giving Anointing of the Sick to young children or to those who are not sick … perhaps you don’t know your own tradition]

I guess you never heard of Holy Tradition? Keep your Latin baggage and take it somewhere else! Here is a link to some more of Fathers heresies. catholicplanet.org/NTM/

Has this guy been reported to his bishop? Maybe it is time to make a few phone calls.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Ryan,

Though I disagree with brother Ciero’s language, I agree with the principle he is trying to express – INSOFAR as he is referring to the disciplinary portions of Trent. Restricting Unction to the “age of reason” is a DISCIPLINARY matter, and does not define the esse of the Sacrament.

Our disciplines are guaranteed to Easterns through the conditions of reunion, and for Orientals through Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclicals and V2. We don’t appreciate imposition of Latin premises into our Canons (though there are some tolerable ones on ecclesiastical issues because of the state of schism with our Orthodox brethren).

If you want an authority from the early Church for our position:

In regard to the confirming of infants…it is permitted to presbyters to anoint the baptized with Chrism…There is no doubt that Unction is to be taken or understood in regard to the sick faithful who are able to be anointed with the holy oil of chrism…
Si instituta, Pope St. Innocent I, March 19, 416 A.D.

The [Jews] were not able to ward off from their children the sting of death, nor prevent the attack of disease; yet [the Church] often save the sick and perishing soul…priests accomplish this not only by teaching and admonishing, but also by the help of prayer; not only in the time of our regeneration, but even afterward…"Is there anyone among you sick? Let him call in the priests of the church…"
The Priesthood, St. John Chrysostom.

Humbly,
Marduk

Ciero, your issue is with the CCOE (as you have made clear) … also, if you think that the Ecumenical Council of Trent is nothing more than “Latin baggage” about which you don’t “give a rat’s behind”, then you are clearly NOT Catholic at heart.
This is a forum for Eastern CATHOLICISM … take your hate-speech somewhere else (yes, it is hate-speech to compare a divinely inspired Ecumenical Council no better than the rear end of a rodent – you are worse than most Protestants, at least they wouldn’t use vulgarities).

[also, I’m still waiting for words from an Eastern Father or an Eastern Council which recommend giving Anointing of the Sick to young children or to those who are not sick … perhaps you don’t know your own tradition]

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Marduk,
Thank you for your kind charity in continuing this discussion in a rational manner.

The Roman Catechism (of Trent) is, of course, an exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the Church – there, it is taught that children “are not fit” to receive the sacrament “having committed no sins”. This is not a mere matter of discipline, but of doctrine.
However, it is surely not a matter of clearly defined dogma … so I can see why there is some confusion.
*

Thank you for the quotations from the Fathers.
The words from St. Innocent seem to refer not to Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick) but to Confirmation (which, as I understand it, is still called Unction [and Chrismation] in the East) … certainly, the theologians and Doctors of the Church have not interpreted Innocent as referring here to Anointing of the Sick.
[in fact, the way that you have cited St. Innocent is more than a little misleading … the first part of the citation comes from a paragraph all about Confirmation (speaking of how it can be given only by the Bishop [as is the Western practice), but the final part of the citation comes from much latter in the letter when the Pope is no longer speaking of children and Confrimation but is instead insisting that priests can confer Anointing of the Sick … hence, the citation is terribly misleading]
You can read the letter here: geocities.ws/caleb1x/documents/instituta.html

The words from St. Chrysostom are more compelling … however, even here it is not clear that he is speaking of giving the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick to children … again the context does not indicate this.
[it is an historical fact that Anointing of the Sick was not given to children in the early Church]

In any case, I do thank you for engaging me in this conversation … I have learned a lot about the CCOE through all this! (special thanks also to Vico)*

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Fr. Ryan,

We are awaiting a comprehensive English translation released earlier this month in Ukrainian from the Ukrainian Church for use by it’s faithful and other Byzantine Catholics. The Church has acknowledged the recent catechisms produced were no sufficiently grounded in the nuances of Byzantine or Oriental theology and has thus allowed each individual church to be given the prerogative to create their own catechism. In the United States, catechical material has been issued by a joint enterprise of the Melkite, Ukrainian and Ruthenian Jurisdictions for their faithful. I believe the Syro- Malabar have done the same.

I still remain unconvinced of the dogmatic implications of the use of reason in this sacrament, as a whole, let alone it’s implications for Eastern Catholics. Nevertheless, I agree there are emphases within each respective tradition, and it seems the west in this region has tended toward reserving the sacrament for those who are conscious of their contrition or who make their acknowledgement of their contrition known.

 

[Vico]

It is the practice in the East to receive the Holy Mystery of Penance prior to Holy Eucharist. Of course our children from infancy on receive Eucharist. Likewise before Holy Anointing adults would go for Holy Mystery of Penance.

In my experience the faithful of the Latin Church, with some exceptions certianly, go to the Sacrament of Confession monthly or less often. I’m not sure what “if possible” means. In my experience any Latin parish where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered at least weekly also has weekly confession scheduled, as well as usually available by appointment. Some places like our local cathedral offer daily confession.

I can explain now, since I have more time. Confession prior to Anointing of the Sick is the praxis, if possible, in the Latin Church. The Orthodox also do this.

Mardukm,

A better translation from the Latin, of canon 740, shows that it is the loss of reason, which can only apply to those that once had it, and not to infants.

Can. 740 - Christifideles graviter aegrotantes, qui sensus vel usum rationis amiserunt, praesumuntur velle sibi hoc sacramentum ministrari in periculo mortis vel etiam ad iudicium sacerdotis alio tempore.

Translates to:

Can. 740 - The seriously ill Christian faithful, who have lost their senses or the use of reason, are presumed to will this sacrament administered in danger of death or even to the judgment of the priest at another time.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

The focus of this forum is to provide a community for Eastern Catholics and to help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage.

We understand that there is a wide diversity of expression of theology, spirituality, and discipline between and within the Eastern, Oriental, * and Western* rites and churches. While these topics may legitimately be discussed in charity, calling into question the catholicity, orthodoxy, or personal faith of another is outside the purpose of this forum and will not be tolerated. Posters are asked to please review our forum guidelines on charity before continued discussion. Thank you.

 

[5Loaves]

Bless Father.
FrRyanErlenbush-
Belated welcome to the CAF and the Eastern Catholicism Section.

I appreciate your interest in this topic. I’d begin my response to you and to this thread by noting that in my experience whenever arguments here in the Eastern Catholicism section appeal to canon law they go on for many pages and do not resolve but merely repeat over and over the same conflicting perspectives. In the West canon law and other formal documents do facilitate resolving certain issues. This is not necessarily the case at all in the East. I observe that introducing canon law into discussions here tends to raise suspicion, as signaling a potential departure from the Eastern mindset. Having been told since reunion by elements in the Latin Church what we in the East should be believing and doing, when such are not of our patrimony, leads to this suspicion.

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.

While some here may “ignore and dismiss the Roman Catechism,” and “twist about the teachings of the current Catechism and of Canon Law (of both east and west)” may I suggest that others of us who are in fact of “good will” do not dismiss or twist but do understand and appreciate these elements from the West while saying they are not relevant to us. Please do not think I am being dismissive. I would ask you to listen to some interviews which I think do a much better job of articulating this than I can. I commend: Eastern Catholic Theology with Fr. Abbot Nicholas of Holy Resurrection Romanian Catholic Monastery PART 1 and PART 2

Having spoken with several of our priests I am assured that anyone in our Churches who has been Baptized does receive Holy Anointing, and as you know we fully initiate-- Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Eucharist-- at all ages, from infancy forward. The Mystery of Penance/Confession enters in when the priest discerns the child is ready. Actual physical illness is not requisite for this Holy Mystery.

There is* relative* uniformity in the one Latin Church, but in the 22 EC/OC Catholic Churches there is not always uniformity for many reasons. However, as I believe Fr. Archimandrite Robert Taft has said, as have our other priests, if we are not Orthodox in our praxis then we as Eastern Catholics have no reason to exist and should be in the Latin Church. Many of us here, and our clergy take this very seriously.

The CCC is considered by my clergy to be a very excellent Catechism of the Latin Church. It is written from a Latin perspective to any of us with an Eastern ear. You may find this a strange idea but nonetheless I share that reality with you, again encouraging you to listen to any and all of the wonderful interviews with the monks from Holy Resurrection Monastery.

The CCEO is also considered by many of us to be a construct necessitated by our union with Rome but again reflecting a decidedly Western way of articulating many things. It also defers to the Canons of any Eastern Church sui iuris for the clergy and faithful of that Church. We know from Holy Tradition and our Orthodox Churches our teachings and praxis.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann in his classic book For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy articulates some of what I think is going on with regards to this topic of Holy Anointing (italics are Schmemann’s)

…The religious outlook considers disease rather than health to be the “normal” state of man…The Church considers healing as a Sacrament… A Sacrament-- as we already know-- is always a* passage*, a* transformation*. Yet it is not a “passage” into the “supernature”, but into the Kingdom of God, the world to come, into the very reality of this world and its life as redeemed and restored by Christ… And healing is a sacrament because its purpose or end is not health as such, the restoration of physical health, but the entrance of man into the life of the Kingdom, into the “joy and peace” of the Holy Spirit…

I hope this sometimes heated dialog has not soured you on the East. but rather might inspire you to read some of the other threads here and explore further the differences in our traditions.

(BTW I have studied canon law pertaining to Sacraments within a three year program offered for the laity in the Latin diocese in which I live and I may have been the student who enjoyed the class the most and have had the most contact with our teacher since. I also love the CCC for use in the Latin Church and judiciously in the East. )

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

5Loaves,
Thank you for the very thoughtful response.

I must admit, though, that I do not see any explicit evidence for Anointing children or those who are not physically ill in the portions of the book you cited.
I am still very suspicious as to whether this practice is truly accepted in the East, or whether (perhaps) many priests just do it even though it is not the proper thing.
*

It is funny to me that you and others of the East think of the CCC as a Western Catechism … I myself think that the CCC often leans too far to the East! Guess it shows that you really can’t please everybody!

BTW, I studied under Fr. Taft for a time in seminary …

I guess my main point with all this discussion is that the theology of Anointing seems to be more clear in the East than in the West – there is some very explicit evidence in the East of a necessary connection between contrition for actual sins and reception of Anointing.
(this is very clear in the CCOE … whatever anyone may think of it, this is not a matter of “Western” influence; the East is MORE EXPLICIT than the West)

Regarding the relation of East and West more generally: It would be good for us all to remember that the vast majority of the Church’s doctrinal formulations come from the Fathers and theologians of the East. The most important Ecumenical Councils were in the East (with almost no Latin involvement). Nearly everything the West believes has been established in the East.
But I never hear Latin Catholics threaten to reject Nicea (just because it was in the East and had almost no Latin representation) … no one in the West says “Don’t push your Eastern notion of ‘Mother of God’ onto us”, even though this phrase came from the East.

If anything, the question is not whether the Church is too Western, the true question is whether the Church is too Eastern! (This is the title of a book by Fr. Norman P. Tanner, an excellent jesuit historian teaching in Rome)
My point is this: The faithful of the Eastern Church shouldn’t have this strange suspicion of Trent as a “western” Council … that would be like the Latin Church thinking of Ephesus as an “eastern” Council!

I hope my point is clear … I mean no offense – The East has a great tradition, it is the foundation also of the West …*

 

[Hesychios]

A single case? – The Blessed Virgin Mary receive Extreme Unction, despite having no sins and no sickness, according to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (in a book that has the Imprimatur from various Bishops as the book was published in various nations/lanuages over many years: The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 370).

Why would someone use the dreams of a 19th century author as evidence for a first century liturgical or theological fact?

That doesn’t make any sense at all …