Holy Annointing and Children

[FrRyanErlenbush]

5Loaves,
Sorry, just realized that I didn’t complete one of my sentences…

Regarding Fr. Taft …
I should have said, “I studied under Fr. Taft in seminary … his courses led to many interesting discussion of the relation between the East and the West”

Also, I should note that Fr. Tanner (who wrote the book “Is the Church too Eastern?”) doesn’t mean that as an attack on the East … the whole point is to emphasize that the East is the heart of the Tradition of the Church!
I agree with this on many points … which is why I don’t understand why ONE Latin Council (i.e. Trent) can’t be accepted with a little more openness by the East [we in the West have received almost our whole early tradition from the East and in the Eastern modes of thinking]

In any case, thank you again for your kind charity in this discussion … truly, you (and others) have really helped me to understand certain things about the CCOE.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr Ryan,

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 accept the Council of Trent as Ecumenical, because I accept its dogmas are universal. Nevertheless, some of these dogmas are expressed with Latin theological premises and terminologies. Easterns and Orientals are willing to sift through the Latinese to get to the real essence of the teaching, and be united according to that essential teaching, but we do not accept having the Latinese forced on us.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

[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

No, it’s not misleading. The purpose of the letter seems to be to answer questions about what a priest can or cannot do in relation to the bishop. So the letter does not purupose to distinguish the issue of Confirmation from that of Unction, but only seeks to discuss the priest’s prerogative – hence, the criteria that those who are able to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation are able to receive the Sacrament of Unction.

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’s may not be clear to you as a Latin, but it’s clear enough to us Easterns and Orientals.

[it is an historical fact that Anointing of the Sick was not given to children in the early Church]
Not according to those sources above.

Can you give patristic sources that restrict Unction to only those of the “age of reason” or only during “danger of death?”

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

The Latin Church sacrament of Extreme Unction was declared a sacrament in later times, not the patristic era. In the early Church there were various forms of anointing of the sick, even by non-priests. (The Orthodox are not unified in their definition of the Anointing of the Sick.) In 1972 there was a change to the name to the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, as Pope Paul VI wrote:

After the Council of Florence had described the essential elements of the Anointing of the Sick,(6) the Council of Trent declared its divine institution and explained what is given in the Epistle of Saint James concerning the Sacred Anointing, especially with regard to the reality and effects of the sacrament: “This reality is in fact the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose anointing takes away sins, if any still remain to be taken away, and the remnants of sin; it also relieves and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great confidence in the divine mercy, whereby being thus sustained he more easily bears the trials and labors of his sickness, more easily resists the temptations of the devil ‘lying in wait’ (Gen. 3:15), and sometimes regains bodily health, if this is expedient for the health of the soul.”(7) The same Council also declared that in these words of the Apostle it is stated with sufficient clarity that “this anointing is to be administered to the sick, especially those who are in such a condition as to appear to have reached the end of their life, whence it is also called the sacrament of the dying.”(8) Finally, it declared that the priest is the proper minister of the sacrament.(9)

The Second Vatican Council adds the following: “‘Extreme Unction,’ which may also and more fittingly be called ‘Anointing of the Sick,’ is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as any one of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the appropriate time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.”(10)

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19721130_sacram-unctionem_en.html

 

[Hesychios]

I accept the Council of Trent as Ecumenical, because I accept its dogmas are universal. Nevertheless, some of these dogmas are expressed with Latin theological premises and terminologies. Easterns and Orientals are willing to sift through the Latinese to get to the real essence of the teaching, …

So you are your own Pope then …

and be united according to that essential teaching, but we do not accept having the Latinese forced on us.

:knight1: You’ll do as you’re told! … and like it

[just kidding Marduk!]

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Dearest Fr Ryan,

I accept the Council of Trent as Ecumenical, because I accept its dogmas are universal. Nevertheless, some of these dogmas are expressed with Latin theological premises and terminologies. Easterns and Orientals are willing to sift through the Latinese to get to the real essence of the teaching, and be united according to that essential teaching, but we do not accept having the Latinese forced on us.

Humbly,
Marduk

Marduk, please understand … what if I (a Latin) said to you: “I don’t want to say that the Trinity is ‘One Nature and Three Hypostases’ this language just seems too Greek to me”?
Why, that would be absurd!
Or what if I said: “‘Homoousios’ is just too Greek of an expression”?

My goodness … no Latin would ever get way with being so suspicious of the early Councils (which are completely dominated by Greek thought and expression) as many modern Easterners are of Trent!

Still, I do understand some of your concern … you want to maintain your own unique tradition (and you certainly have a right and obligation to do so).

Regarding the citation from Innocent … it is a misleading citation … The Pope, when speaking about the Anointing of children, specifies that this is with Sacred Chrism and is the sacrament of Confirmation … HE ALSO SAYS ONLY THE BISHOP CAN CONFIRM!
Then, when speaking of the sick, he specifies that this is not the same as Confirmation, BECAUSE A PRIEST CAN ANOINT THE SICK.
*

And no, I do not have a quote from a father stating that we can’t give Anointing of the Sick to children … neither do I have one stating that we can’t ordain young children to the priesthood.
What I do have is the scriptural evidence from James which speaks of those who have fallen ill – “Is there any man SICK among you?” – and the patristic insistence that Anointing is the completion of penance (and penance is done only by those who have sinned, 4-monthg-olds don’t do penance)*

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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?..”

Bless me a sinner, Father!

I don’t know which Father, Council or canon law allows for this, but in our tradition, Anointing is regularly given to all members of our Church on Holy Wednesday as we prepare to die, be buried and rise with Christ on Pascha.

When our priests and bishops anoint us with holy oil on Festal Days following the Divine Liturgy, there is no hard and fast distinction made between this anointing and the Anointing as a sacrament.

The Anointing is not an Eastern form of “last rites” since the East actually does not have the last rites. The purpose of the Anointing is to ask God to bring the person back to health in body and soul, and if it is God’s Will that the person pass over into the next life, to spiritually strengthen that person through the Grace of that Sacrament. Physical illness and spiritual illness are one and the same in the Christian East as well.

As for patristic and other supportive background for these practices, I will refer you to our professors of theology at the Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky Institute, for one.

I only know what is practiced in my Church.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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

Dear Brother Marduk,

Excellent quotes!

In fact, you’ve put your finger squarely on the real difference between the Latin West’s understanding of the Anointing and that of the Byzantine East.

The Anointing in the East is not primarily a form of “last rites” (which we don’t have, in any event). It is for purposes of healing, physically and spiritually.

Therefore, from this Eastern perspective, Anointing is entirely appropriate even for children who haven’t reached the age of reason.

In fact, the Eastern Catholic tradition gives the Sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion to infants as the Sacraments of Initiation, as you better than I.

Alex

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

@Alexander Roman and Marduk,

Honestly, I don’t know how anyone at all could possibly think that Pope Innocent is stating that priests should give Anointing of the Sick to children or to those who are not sick … the citation is very obviously butchering the true sense of the letter …
I will cite the whole portion of the letter below [taken from http://geocities.ws/caleb1x/documents/instituta.html]:

---

(3) But in regard to the signing of little children, it is evident that it may not be done by any other than a bishop. For the presbyters, although they are second priests, nevertheless do not possess the crown of the pontificate. That this power of a bishop, however, is due to the bishops alone, so that they either sign or give the Paraclete the Spirit, not only ecclesiastical custom indicates, but also that reading in the Acts of the Apostles which declares that Peter and John were directed to give the Holy Spirit to those already baptized [cf. Acts 8:14-17]. For to presbyters it is permitted to anoint the baptized with chrism whenever they baptize, whether without a bishop or in the presence of a bishop, but (with chrism) that has been consecrated by a bishop; nevertheless (it is) not (allowed) to sign the forehead with the same oil; that is due to the bishops alone when they bestow the Spirit, the Paraclete. Indeed, I cannot say the words lest I seem to go further than to reply to the inquiry.

(8) Truly since your love has wished to take counsel regarding this just as concerning other (matters), my son Celestine, the deacon, has also added in his letter that what was written in the epistle of the blessed Apostle James has been proposed by your love: If anyone among you is sick, let him call the priests, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sufferer and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he has committed sin, he shall pardon him [Jas. 5:14 f.]. There is no doubt that this anointing ought to be interpreted or understood of the sick faithful, who can be anointed with the holy oil of chrism, which prepared by a bishop, is permitted not only to priests, but also to all as Christians for anointing in their own necessity or in the necessity of their (people). Moreover, we see that addition to be superfluous; that what is undoubtedly permitted the presbyters is questioned regarding bishops. For, on this account it was said to priests, because the bishops being hindered by other business cannot go to all the sick. But if a bishop, to whom it belongs to prepare the chrism, is able (to do it) or thinks someone is worthy to be visited by him, he can both bless and anoint with the chrism without delay. For, that cannot be administered to penitents, because it is a kind of sacrament. For, how is it supposed that one species (of sacrament) can be granted to those to whom the rest of the sacraments are denied?​

Now, it should be very clear that the two paragraphs are not speaking of the same Anointing … the way that some have quoted Innocent is misleading.

Moreover, the Pontiff is not even speaking exclusively of Anointing of the Sick as a sacrament, since he states that “all as Christians” are permitted to anoint “in their own necessity or in the necessity of their (people).”

You really loose all credibility when you misquote Popes and Church Fathers like this!

If people want to accept this letter, fine. But the Pope very clearly restricts the faculty of Confirmation to the Bishop alone.
How odd it is that Easterners would be appealing to this very anti-eastern document!

 

[Hesychios]

…
You really loose all credibility when you misquote Popes and Church Fathers like this!

If people want to accept this letter, fine. But the Pope very clearly restricts the faculty of Confirmation to the Bishop alone.
How odd it is that Easterners would be appealing to this very anti-eastern document!

Welcome to Wonderland father …

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/alicepic/alice-in-wonderland/1book3.jpg

“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Hesychios,
You have one of the most quirky and enjoyable senses of humor I have come across in a long time!

Blessings to you! +

 

[mardukm]

Dearesr Father Ryan,

It seems apparent you are not regularly engaged with non-Latins on theological issues. You are conflating:
(1) theological expressions that the whole Church has agreed on in Ecumenical Councils in which the whole Church participated

with

(2) theological expressions from what can be considered Ecumenical in which only the Latin Catholic Church for the most part participated.

It is evident that in (2), Latin theological expressions will predominate. It’s rather insensitive for you to insist that your Latin theological expressions are universal, when the Easterns nor Orientals participated in formulating those dogmas.

As stated, we are willing to sift through the Latinese to get at the essence of the Faith that is the basis for our unity, but we will not appreciate having the Latinese forced on us. For example, as an Oriental, I accept the dogma of Trent on Original Sin, but you can be sure that the phrase “we inherit the guilt of original sin” will, without explanation, be rejected by the Oriental Tradition. Orientals would simply rather say, “we inherit consequences from the original sin of Adam.” This statement is not in the same exact Latinese (i.e. theological expressions) as used by Trent, but it very well expresses the EXACT SAME faith that Trent proposed.

The Easterns have other issues with the theological language of Trent. For example, “sin”, in the Eastern Tradition, always refers to ACTUAL sin. But that is not the same way that Trent defines “sin.” So the theological language of Trent is often misunderstood and in fact quite offputting according to the Eastern Tradition. Trent can, of course, be understood in an orthodox manner according to the Eastern Tradition, even if “sin” is understood differently. But the Easterns will not appreciate you trying to impose your definition of “sin” on them. Nevertheless, if we can focus on the MEANING of Trent’s decrees, rather than the theological language in which it is expressed, we can be joined in unity, as our Lord commands.

Humbly,
Marduk

Marduk, please understand … what if I (a Latin) said to you: “I don’t want to say that the Trinity is ‘One Nature and Three Hypostases’ this language just seems too Greek to me”?
Why, that would be absurd!
Or what if I said: “‘Homoousios’ is just too Greek of an expression”?

My goodness … no Latin would ever get way with being so suspicious of the early Councils (which are completely dominated by Greek thought and expression) as many modern Easterners are of Trent!

Still, I do understand some of your concern … you want to maintain your own unique tradition (and you certainly have a right and obligation to do so).

Regarding the citation from Innocent … it is a misleading citation … The Pope, when speaking about the Anointing of children, specifies that this is with Sacred Chrism and is the sacrament of Confirmation … HE ALSO SAYS ONLY THE BISHOP CAN CONFIRM!
Then, when speaking of the sick, he specifies that this is not the same as Confirmation, BECAUSE A PRIEST CAN ANOINT THE SICK.
*

And no, I do not have a quote from a father stating that we can’t give Anointing of the Sick to children … neither do I have one stating that we can’t ordain young children to the priesthood.
What I do have is the scriptural evidence from James which speaks of those who have fallen ill – “Is there any man SICK among you?” – and the patristic insistence that Anointing is the completion of penance (and penance is done only by those who have sinned, 4-monthg-olds don’t do penance)*

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Marduk,
I noticed that you did not try to defend the citation from Innocent … are you agreeing that the citation was misleading?

Also, I don’t think you quite understand the situation of the early Councils of the Church … there was often no western (name removed by moderator)ut. NONE, none at all. [you must know that many of the early Councils did not have any Latin bishops present]
The language of those early Councils, is entirely (or very nearly entirely) Eastern.

In any case, this whole discussion has gone far from the original question about Anointing … and I still have not seen any citation from the early Church which shows evidence of giving Anointing of the Sick to infants or to those who are not physically sick.

I wonder whether the current practice (which you have described) is truly the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick,or is rather just a sacramental …

In any case, thank you for the discussion … I will certainly read any further comments you have, but I don’t think I will continue to comment anymore myself.
Peace and blessings to you! +

 

[mardukm]

Marduk,
I noticed that you did not try to defend the citation from Innocent … are you agreeing that the citation was misleading?

See my post #61.

Also, I don’t think you quite understand the situation of the early Councils of the Church … there was often no western (name removed by moderator)ut. NONE, none at all. [you must know that many of the early Councils did not have any Latin bishops present]
The language of those early Councils, is entirely (or very nearly entirely) Eastern.

A language accepted by the Westerns. So it was a common theological language for the most part.

In any case, this whole discussion has gone far from the original question about Anointing … and I still have not seen any citation from the early Church which shows evidence of giving Anointing of the Sick to infants or to those who are not physically sick.

Not according to your Latin understanding, but what I gave is sufficient for Easterns and Orientals. Besides, you haven’t affered any citations from the first millenium that affirms the Latin restrictions.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Fine, Marduk, I wasn’t gonna respond any further … but you have lead me too it!

So, you accept the letter of Innocent I as authoritative … therefore, you refuse the errant tradition of allowing priests to confer Confirmation?! This is stated very clearly in the letter … it is the next sentence after the one you have quoted before …

in regard to the signing of little children, [this is where you stopped quoting “in regard to the confirming of infants”] it is evident that it may not be done by any other than a bishop.

This is truly ridiculous and utterly absurd. Enough of the nonsense!

Again, if you want an early citation that connects Anointing of the Sick with those who are physically ill … how about this: “Is any man SICK among you?” … now, you should know that the James who wrote the Letter, is the James who was bishop of Jerusalem (and therefore Eastern) and not the James who went to Spain (lest you reject him as just another Latin priest imposing his views on the East).

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. Ryan,

Fine, Marduk, I wasn’t gonna respond any further … but you have lead me too it!

Can’t resist a good debate?

So, you accept the letter of Innocent I as authoritative … therefore, you refuse the errant tradition of allowing priests to confer Confirmation?! This is stated very clearly in the letter … it is the next sentence after the one you have quoted before …

in regard to the signing of little children, [this is where you stopped quoting “in regard to the confirming of infants”] it is evident that it may not be done by any other than a bishop.

You asked for a witness to the Eastern/Oriental Tradition of Unction for children in the early Church. I gave you one (two, actually).

The Tradition that only bishops have inherent authority to confirm is a Tradition of the Latin Church, not the Eastern or Oriental Churches. There are a lot of Traditions that Latins share in common with East and Orient. But there are also Traditions that are unique to each Church, even doctrinal ones (though we all share the same dogmatic Faith). That you insist on uniformity is rather offensive.

This is truly ridiculous and utterly absurd. Enough of the nonsense!

Why are you calling your own Tradition nonsense?

Again, if you want an early citation that connects Anointing of the Sick with those who are physically ill … how about this: “Is any man SICK among you?” … now, you should know that the James who wrote the Letter, is the James who was bishop of Jerusalem (and therefore Eastern) and not the James who went to Spain (lest you reject him as just another Latin priest imposing his views on the East).

I don’t know what this proves. Easterns and Orientals are very faithful to this scriptural teaching. We don’t restrict it to sickness only at the point of death however.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[FrRyanErlenbush]

Marduk,
Truly, I would very much enjoy to continue this discussion … but, alas, too many other duties.

In any case, peace to you … we will have to let the issue of the Pope Innocent I quote lay as is.
I hope to write something more on Anointing of the Sick (over at New Theological Movement) sometime in the future … I will try to incorporate a substantial amount of the Eastern tradition.

Now, I’m gonna shrug three times, just for good measure !

Blessings to you, in Christ our Savior! +

 

[MaMo]

This sounds like the conversation a guy and I had over my baby receiving communion. He said that the stain of original sin is completely washed away in baptism and the grace imparted in baptism sustains the baby in perfect communion until the age of reason. Only then does the child need more sacramental grace to reestablish his relationship with God. He thought giving a baby communion was a slap in the face to the baby and to God.

I said we are born into the sinful world and its effects make us sick and make us suffer even after baptism. Who among us isn’t dying? As long as we’re in this world and we have grace available to us to help us preserve and strengthen our relationship with God, I’m not going to deny my baby of that grace. He thought it was a little simplistic of me, but we both understood where the other was coming from and accepted it.

If the Roman Catholics think the baby is in a perfect relationship with God already, it makes sense that they wouldn’t give a dying baby annointing. I think that the sins of the world affect my baby through no fault of his own. He wouldn’t need to confess his own sins, not having any, but the spiritual and possibly physical healing that comes with annointing would be important to me if my baby were ill because I know that nothing in this world is perfect and his illness would be enough proof of that to tell me that we rely only on God’s grace. It’s available in a sacrament in the church left specifically for healing the soul and body. Why would I deny my baby that?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

@Alexander Roman and Marduk,

Honestly, I don’t know how anyone at all could possibly think that Pope Innocent is stating that priests should give Anointing of the Sick to children or to those who are not sick … the citation is very obviously butchering the true sense of the letter …
I will cite the whole portion of the letter below [taken from http://geocities.ws/caleb1x/documents/instituta.html]:

---

(3) But in regard to the signing of little children, it is evident that it may not be done by any other than a bishop. For the presbyters, although they are second priests, nevertheless do not possess the crown of the pontificate. That this power of a bishop, however, is due to the bishops alone, so that they either sign or give the Paraclete the Spirit, not only ecclesiastical custom indicates, but also that reading in the Acts of the Apostles which declares that Peter and John were directed to give the Holy Spirit to those already baptized [cf. Acts 8:14-17]. For to presbyters it is permitted to anoint the baptized with chrism whenever they baptize, whether without a bishop or in the presence of a bishop, but (with chrism) that has been consecrated by a bishop; nevertheless (it is) not (allowed) to sign the forehead with the same oil; that is due to the bishops alone when they bestow the Spirit, the Paraclete. Indeed, I cannot say the words lest I seem to go further than to reply to the inquiry.

(8) Truly since your love has wished to take counsel regarding this just as concerning other (matters), my son Celestine, the deacon, has also added in his letter that what was written in the epistle of the blessed Apostle James has been proposed by your love: If anyone among you is sick, let him call the priests, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sufferer and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he has committed sin, he shall pardon him [Jas. 5:14 f.]. There is no doubt that this anointing ought to be interpreted or understood of the sick faithful, who can be anointed with the holy oil of chrism, which prepared by a bishop, is permitted not only to priests, but also to all as Christians for anointing in their own necessity or in the necessity of their (people). Moreover, we see that addition to be superfluous; that what is undoubtedly permitted the presbyters is questioned regarding bishops. For, on this account it was said to priests, because the bishops being hindered by other business cannot go to all the sick. But if a bishop, to whom it belongs to prepare the chrism, is able (to do it) or thinks someone is worthy to be visited by him, he can both bless and anoint with the chrism without delay. For, that cannot be administered to penitents, because it is a kind of sacrament. For, how is it supposed that one species (of sacrament) can be granted to those to whom the rest of the sacraments are denied?​

Now, it should be very clear that the two paragraphs are not speaking of the same Anointing … the way that some have quoted Innocent is misleading.

Moreover, the Pontiff is not even speaking exclusively of Anointing of the Sick as a sacrament, since he states that “all as Christians” are permitted to anoint “in their own necessity or in the necessity of their (people).”

You really loose all credibility when you misquote Popes and Church Fathers like this!

If people want to accept this letter, fine. But the Pope very clearly restricts the faculty of Confirmation to the Bishop alone.
How odd it is that Easterners would be appealing to this very anti-eastern document!

Bless Father

Actually, I wasn’t appealing to any letter, but to the practice of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Someone (perhaps yourself) should right to our primates to explain this to them!

And in Canada, when Eastern Catholics here of “Trent” - they think of the canal . . .

Alex

 

[5Loaves]

The priest (Russian Orthodox) I wanted to ask about this was unavailable while this discussion was going on. We spoke for about an hour on this a few days ago.

For me the single most important thing he said, which was indeed the first thing he said was: read the text of the service. What are the prayers the priest prays? What do we say? That tells you the teaching. (We always say in the East "The Liturgy is the catechesis. )

I brought up the quote from Fr. Alexander Schmemann I had used here and what I had in mind when using it. He used the word “spiritualizing” to describe my interpretation of this quote. I think that might be basically how Priest Ryan sees the interpretation of the Sacrament now in many Latin parishes, which his blog was countering.

He recommended a fairly recent book The Anointing of the Sick by Dr. Paul Meyendorff of St. Vlad’s Seminary. SVS press gives the table of contents here.

Part of our discussion included talking about the primary sacraments of healing being Baptism, Penance/Confession, and Holy Eucharist. I said that in my experience at least with Catholics I think they seem to disbelieve the reality of the forgiveness we receive with Holy Eucharist. He agreed that the laity seem to not grasp and embrace the completeness of this healing and forgiveness.

I wonder whether the current practice (which you have described) is truly the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick,or is rather just a sacramental …

There are both. Festal anointings which are what we would call sacramentals, which I as a Catholic known to the Orthodox celebrant have many times received in an Orthodox Church, as well as my EC Church. And there is a different anointing which for example was mentioned is on Holy Wed. and is a Holy Sacrament, which I have been present for in Orthodox Churches and not received. Father said this is Holy Unction in Greek Orthodox Churches on Holy Wed. He said it is not Holy Unction in his diocese but rather another Holy Mystery. I am unfamiliar with the texts of Holy Unction but he said they are unrelated to the Holy Week. I brought up that we are as I characterized it in an earlier post strengthened by this Sacrament, in Holy Week, as we prepare to enter into the Passion of our Lord Christ God. He was content with the idea of this but again, in his diocese he said this is not Holy Unction but a separate Sacrament. My notes from our conversation say there is “a prohibition to serve Unction over the well.”

This leads to the whole topic of Sacraments/Holy Mysteries which were defined in the West, seven, in a way which is different from the East.

In any case, thank you for the discussion … I will certainly read any further comments you have, but I don’t think I will continue to comment anymore myself.
Peace and blessings to you! +

I thank you all for this discussion. It has caused me to think more deeply about what exactly is going on during these various anointings I have been part of, and to get clarification from the priest who has been the celebrant at most of those. I’ve ordered the book The Anointing of the Sick from SVS press and look forward to reading it.