How much teaching on how to confer the sacraments is taught in the seminary?

[Phemie]

The Rite of Baptism says that the person being baptized is anointed with the Sacred Chrism on the “crown of the head”. Why do so many priests anoint the forehead? I saw it again today when I was right there holding the book for Father. Confirmation is when the anointing is on the forehead.

 

[CB_Catholic]

The Rite of Baptism says that the person being baptized is anointed with the Sacred Chrism on the “crown of the head”. Why do so many priests anoint the forehead? I saw it again today when I was right there holding the book for Father. Confirmation is when the anointing is on the forehead.

The crown of the head is not actually the top of the head–it is further toward the back of the head. On an infant it is behind the soft spot. I suspect the forehead is easier to reach. I don’t think it is major deal, I doubt the crown is actually anointed by many priests, it is so far back.

Here is a picture of the anatomy of the head for hairdressers.
hairfinder.com/info/anatomyhead.htm

 

[Phemie]

The crown of the head is not actually the top of the head–it is further toward the back of the head. On an infant it is behind the soft spot. I suspect the forehead is easier to reach. I don’t think it is major deal, I doubt the crown is actually anointed by many priests, it is so far back.

Here is a picture of the anatomy of the head for hairdressers.
hairfinder.com/info/anatomyhead.htm

Easier to reach? The kid is in her mom’s arms and the priest is taller, how difficult is it to anoint the back of the head rather than to going as far as moving the bangs out of the way to anoint the forehead? Today it would actually have been a lot easier to anoint the crown of the head since the child had her face against mom’s shoulder and was trying to avoid being touched by anyone else. She wanted nothing to do with Father.

I’ve seen older priests always anoint the crown, or at the very least avoid the forehead and rub Chrism all over the top of the child’s head.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Easier to reach? The kid is in her mom’s arms and the priest is taller, how difficult is it to anoint the back of the head rather than to going as far as moving the bangs out of the way to anoint the forehead? Today it would actually have been a lot easier to anoint the crown of the head since the child had her face against mom’s shoulder and was trying to avoid being touched by anyone else. She wanted nothing to do with Father.

I’ve seen older priests always anoint the crown, or at the very least avoid the forehead and rub Chrism all over the top of the child’s head.

Phemie, have it your way. I tried to offer a reasonable explanation, that is all. You are the first person ever that I’ve heard complain about this rubric. Just ask your priest about it and get it off your chest.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Phemie, have it your way. I tried to offer a reasonable explanation, that is all. You are the first person ever that I’ve heard complain about this rubric. Just ask your priest about it and get it off your chest.

 

[edward_george]

We had a whole semester on the various sacraments and rituals a deacon can perform, and then two separate practicums on things a priest can do, one on the Mass and one on confession/anointing. I’m not sure how this title is actually germane to the complaint you raise, however.

-ACEGC

 

[pianistclare]

Easier to reach? The kid is in her mom’s arms and the priest is taller, how difficult is it to anoint the back of the head rather than to going as far as moving the bangs out of the way to anoint the forehead? Today it would actually have been a lot easier to anoint the crown of the head since the child had her face against mom’s shoulder and was trying to avoid being touched by anyone else. She wanted nothing to do with Father.

I’ve seen older priests always anoint the crown, or at the very least avoid the forehead and rub Chrism all over the top of the child’s head.

Went to a Baptism today in fact, stood in as proxy. He anointed the crown of the head.
Having said that, why is i problematic? I don’t see why this is even a question.
It doesn’t invalidate the Sacrament at all.

 

[Agape_Thom]

Was Jesus anointed with oil at His baptism by John?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Easier to reach? The kid is in her mom’s arms and the priest is taller, how difficult is it to anoint the back of the head rather than to going as far as moving the bangs out of the way to anoint the forehead? Today it would actually have been a lot easier to anoint the crown of the head since the child had her face against mom’s shoulder and was trying to avoid being touched by anyone else. She wanted nothing to do with Father.

I’ve seen older priests always anoint the crown, or at the very least avoid the forehead and rub Chrism all over the top of the child’s head.

Why do you think it matters so much? Seems something extremely small to knit pick.

 

[felsguy]

Was Jesus anointed with oil at His baptism by John?

My hunch is no since John’s baptism was not sacramental.

 

[TimothyH]

Was Jesus anointed with oil at His baptism by John?

Jesus’ baptism was a telivah, a ritual purification bath or washing. The Greek work for washing is baptisma, of which there were three levels.

• Rishma was a daily self immersion.
• Tamasha was a triple immersion and could be performed on your own.
• Mashbuta was a full baptism performed by a priest and it included anointing with oil, consumption of bread, ritual kiss and laying on of hands by the priest.

Reference essene.com/B’nai-Amen/MysticalImmersion.htm

We don’t know what Jesus’ telivah in the Jordan river was but it could have included anointing with oil. We simply don’t know. Jesus would have underwent the Mashbuta, full baptism however, many times in his life. That much is clear.

-Tim-

 

[Phemie]

Now I’m sorry I asked the question. All I wanted to know is whether they learned how to confer the sacraments before they were ordained or if they learned by doing after they were assigned to a parish and may just not be reading the rubrics.

I’m well aware that where the child is anointed has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament since the anointing itself is not necessary for a valid Baptism. I just find it odd that the differences in the anointings were pointed out to us when we studied the sacraments of initiation but don’t seem to be known or are simply ignored by some priests.

Note that I’ve never seen a Baptism conferred by a deacon simply because they are as rare as hens’ teeth where I live. We have only 1 transitional deacon and 0 permanent deacon in our diocese.

 

[twf]

Of course it matters. I don’t know why everyone is being so hard on the OP. The rubrics exist for a reason and the Church has told us again and again that no priest is free to mess with them. Every action prescribed by the Church is loaded with historical / theological / symbolic meaning that enriches our participation in the prayer of the Church, which is to say, the prayer of Christ Himself to the Father.
The OP didn’t condemn priests who ignore this rubric. Nor did she question validity of the sacraments. If it doesn’t matter, why not? Where do we draw the line? What if the priest decides to write his own rite of exorcism prior to baptism? That doesn’t effect the validity either…

 

[pianistclare]

Of course it matters. I don’t know why everyone is being so hard on the OP. The rubrics exist for a reason and the Church has told us again and again that no priest is free to mess with them. Every action prescribed by the Church is loaded with historical / theological / symbolic meaning that enriches our participation in the prayer of the Church, which is to say, the prayer of Christ Himself to the Father.
The OP didn’t condemn priests who ignore this rubric. Nor did she question validity of the sacraments. If it doesn’t matter, why not? Where do we draw the line? What if the priest decides to write his own rite of exorcism prior to baptism? That doesn’t effect the validity either…/QUOT

it’s not an egregious error.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Of course it matters. I don’t know why everyone is being so hard on the OP. The rubrics exist for a reason and the Church has told us again and again that no priest is free to mess with them. Every action prescribed by the Church is loaded with historical / theological / symbolic meaning that enriches our participation in the prayer of the Church, which is to say, the prayer of Christ Himself to the Father.
The OP didn’t condemn priests who ignore this rubric. Nor did she question validity of the sacraments. If it doesn’t matter, why not? Where do we draw the line? What if the priest decides to write his own rite of exorcism prior to baptism? That doesn’t effect the validity either…

This is to misunderstand the nature of rubrics. Normally, often enough, the rubric or a supplemental instruction will advise the celebrant of the sacrament in question on elements that may be adapted and modified.

As one example from many, the rubric for the anointing of the sick states that the anointing is given on the forehead and the palms of each hand. The instructions say that, in case of necessity, a single anointing on the forehead suffices – and that if the head of the patient is not available, one should get as near to the head as possible.

There have been many times when I am administering the sacraments to one at the point of death where I, as the celebrant, have made the determination that is properly mine to make, that the closest I can get to the patient’s head is the sole of his foot, so as not to interfere with the health care professionals who are dealing with the crisis/trauma that the patient has sustained.

It is ultimately the theology of the sacrament itself that tells the minister that which is essential and cannot be varied. That, along with any other instruction or directive, is the paradigm to be used in interpreting the relative weight of the various rubrics and making prudential applications to the concrete situation in which the sacrament is being celebrated.

As to the original posters questions:

1. This would be covered in academic courses as well as during in-seminary practicums.
2. In a seminarians pastoral rotations, he should have exposure to this as it occurs in real life
3. His formation should cover his staying abreast of the rubrics.

When I was a professor of liturgy and sacraments, how the courses for the individual sacraments were formulated and where they came in the multi-year programme of study varied.

As to why your pastor did this – I can’t answer that since I can’t know what was in his mind. Why don’t you ask him?

Personally, when I do this, it is a bit of a judgement call on my part. If I can access the crown of the head, I do so – all else being equal and the child is not thrashing about.

If the baby (or sometimes we are beyond the stage of an infant) actually has a lot of hair, I will assess whether I am actually more anointing hair as opposed to the head and I may adjust for that so that the chrism is actually in contact with skin as opposed to hair.

If the infant is extremely agitated, that also enters into the equation – since the infant has just had water poured upon it and may not be happy. The anointing with chrism is, by definition, an explanatory rite in the celebration of this sacrament…along with the conferral of the candle and the bestowing of the white garment.

 

[twf]

This is to misunderstand the nature of rubrics. Normally, often enough, the rubric or a supplemental instruction will advise the celebrant of the sacrament in question on elements that may be adapted and modified.

As one example from many, the rubric for the anointing of the sick states that the anointing is given on the forehead and the palms of each hand. The instructions say that, in case of necessity, a single anointing on the forehead suffices – and that if the head of the patient is not available, one should get as near to the head as possible.

There have been many times when I am administering the sacraments to one at the point of death where I, as the celebrant, have made the determination that is properly mine to make, that the closest I can get to the patient’s head is the sole of his foot, so as not to interfere with the health care professionals who are dealing with the crisis/trauma that the patient has sustained.

It is ultimately the theology of the sacrament itself that tells the minister that which is essential and cannot be varied. That, along with any other instruction or directive, is the paradigm to be used in interpreting the relative weight of the various rubrics and making prudential applications to the concrete situation in which the sacrament is being celebrated.

As to the original posters questions:

1. This would be covered in academic courses as well as during in-seminary practicums.
2. In a seminarians pastoral rotations, he should have exposure to this as it occurs in real life
3. His formation should cover his staying abreast of the rubrics.

When I was a professor of liturgy and sacraments, how the courses for the individual sacraments were formulated and where they came in the multi-year programme of study varied.

As to why your pastor did this – I can’t answer that since I can’t know what was in his mind. Why don’t you ask him?

Personally, when I do this, it is a bit of a judgement call on my part. If I can access the crown of the head, I do so – all else being equal and the child is not thrashing about.

If the baby (or sometimes we are beyond the stage of an infant) actually has a lot of hair, I will assess whether I am actually more anointing hair as opposed to the head and I may adjust for that so that the chrism is actually in contact with skin as opposed to hair.

If the infant is extremely agitated, that also enters into the equation – since the infant has just had water poured upon it and may not be happy. The anointing with chrism is, by definition, an explanatory rite in the celebration of this sacrament…along with the conferral of the candle and the bestowing of the white garment.

Of course, Father. The rubrics need to be adapted to the circumstances at the priest’s discretion. What I meant is some on this thread seemed to be implying that the question didn’t matter - that the rubric in question is immaterial- of no real importance. That’s what I was addressing, not whether or why the priest in question may have deviated from the norm.

 

[buc_fan33]

I’ll chime in here and echo what Fr. Ruggero said. In our formation, we had practica courses on how to celebrate each of the sacraments. But, the truth is, you can’t cover everything. Some of it has to be “on the job training” so to speak. And, despite what people think, there are “gaps” in the rubrics. For example, the ritual book that governs funeral liturgies, Order of Christian Funerals, at the burial, has a prayer that is prayed over the grave that specifies that it is to be used when the grave is to be blessed. But, the prayer doesn’t say when the priest blesses the grave, or how he is supposed to hold his hands.

The Rite of Baptism book says nothing about introductory rites for the sacrament. I know some priests who always begin with the sign of the cross, on the basis that it’s a Christian ceremony, so it should begin with the sign of the cross. I know others who don’t, on the rationale that since the baby (or adult as it may be) is not yet baptized (and thus not a Christian), it would be improper to begin with the sign of the cross. I’ve known others who say that those who are baptized begin with the sign of the cross and those who aren’t, don’t.

The point is that it’s not always so cut and dry.

Speaking personally, I didn’t know what the “crown” of the head was the first time I read that. The first baptism I did, I anointed on the forehead. Then, I figured it meant the top of the head. For the pre-baptismal anointing, it says the child is to be anointed on the chest. If the person receiving baptism happens to be female, this obviously has to be done with discretion. There is no guide that says, “If she is this old, anoint her chest. If she is this old, skip it.” But, prudence would dictate that there is a certain age where it is inappropriate for an adult male to touch a female in that area of her body.

As it relates to the class, again, you can’t cover everything. Furthermore, I’ll bet there isn’t anyone here who would remember EVERYTHING that was taught to them in their college coursework. If you’ve got an ordination class of 25 guys, the instructor simply isn’t going to be able to examine EVERYONE’S methodology perfectly. Not to mention that seminary instruction has to include scripture, morals, sacramental theology, patristics, Church history, Hispanic ministry (this is ever more the reality for the Church in America, where I’m assuming most posting/reading this board are from), ecclesiology, and foreign language study. And this is just scratching the surface. Obviously, this is in addition to regular prayer/Mass schedules, the need to exercise, eat, get adequate sleep, and engage in pastoral work while in seminary.

The point is that most priests are doing the best they can. Even those who are a little goofy in their liturgy are, in general, doing the best they can. I’ve yet to meet a priest who is actually acting out of malice in the liturgy. I would suspect that outside of professional sports, no profession is critiqued as much as priests. Please understand, I mean no disrespect by this post, but sometimes I think people expect perfection out of priests (like they do out of their favorite athletes/coaches).

 

[otjm]

Of course, Father. The rubrics need to be adapted to the circumstances at the priest’s discretion. What I meant is some on this thread seemed to be implying that the question didn’t matter - that the rubric in question is immaterial- of no real importance. That’s what I was addressing, not whether or why the priest in question may have deviated from the norm.

There is an old phrase about “shooting from the lip”, which might be adapted to say “shooting from the keyboard”. Many, me included, have a tendency to fire off an answer without letting it sit, and then reviewing it before posting.

I suspect you are right about what you meant; but for the sake of review, you might want to look at your post again, as it does come off as tending toward absolutism concerning rubrics. Again, I accept your comment; but the prior post does come off as if you are using both barrels.