Is remote danger or proximate danger of death required for Anointing of the Sick?

[Holly3278]

Alright so what if my spiritual director who I know is an orthodox priest says I can receive it. And yes, I brought up to him what the Catechism said. I discovered the Canon Law after I had already talked to him and it was too late to ask again.

That said, the Canon Law does use the word “can” it does not use language that says it can only be received when in danger of death whether proximate or near.

 

[Lapey]

Newlywed, this isn’t the place to peddle your “Eastern Catholics get to ignore canon law” nonsense. So please let’s return to the original topic.

This post is uncalled for…please refer to canon #1…The code of Canon Law only pertains to the LATIN RITE CHURCH. So Newlywed is not “ignoring” Canon Law, his Tradition is not bound by it.

 

[fred_conty]

James 5:14

“If one of you is ill, he should send for the elders of the church, and they must annoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and pray over him.”

This was the origin of the sacrament of the sick and endorsed by Trent.

This would indicate that this holy annointing was only intended for the sick.

Just some thoughts.

 

[babochka]

And the proper way to have your name listed in the bulletin is to make an offering for a Mass intention. This is a very good idea if you are sick. A small donation is requested so that the priest can be paid. The parish office will be happy to assist you in scheduling it.

Perhaps your parish does not have an opportunity to ask for the prayers of the individual parishioners in this way, but many parishes do. They are not mutually exclusive. In my parish, the proper way is to ask the priest for prayers, and you will be remembered in the Divine Liturgy and your name will be listed in the bulletin so that others may pray for you. I do not believe the Church has spoken in an official manner about this.

 

[babochka]

[edited]

You are simply incorrect with your interpretation of the CCEO, it does not forbid the giving of the Mystery to people outside of grave illness. And I trust that the abbots, bishops, professors, scholars, and seminary leaders who subscribe to what I have described are not peddling nonsense. To say such a thing is not in the spirit of Christian charity or the Easter season and I thank you not to refer to the Eastern tradition as nonsense.

As I said, I mentioned this only even brought this up to point out that free administration does not lead to consumerism Catholicism. As I have said in every post, abuses of their own Tradition within their own churches should be taken up with a priest.

One of the things on this board that amazes me is the willingness to quote and interpret canon law by those who are not trained to do so. Canon law is complex. Canon lawyers are highly trained, and even they often don’t agree on the proper interpretation. We should be relying on our Bishops to properly instruct our priests, and if there is a concern about abuse or violation of canon law, the Bishop is the proper person to bring the concern to.

In spite of that, here I am, quoting canon law. Canon 2 of the CCEO states:

Canon 2 - The canons of the Code, in which for the most part the ancient law of the Eastern Churches is received or adapted, are to be assessed mainly according to that law.

This is the overriding principle for interpretation of the Code of Canons for Oriental Churches.

 

[RedSparklyShoes]

Our church does a monthly healing mass. Our pastor has preached about the sacrament and about how we all need healing of some kind, be it physical, spritiual, emotional, psychological and he encourages all to come and be annointed. I was only just received into the RC church on Saturday and he annointed me too, knowing full well I wasn’t Catholic yet (although I think I might have been in RCIA already, I can’t recall when he started the monthly healing masses).

Generally at the healing masses (I’ve attended several), he will also preach on reconciliation being the 2nd healing sacrament. I’ve been at this parish just over a year (actually his first Sunday was my first Sunday there although my husband had been before) and I’ve heard several homilies on the annointing of the sick and reconciliation, sometimes together, sometimes not.

 

[newlywed8]

One of the things on this board that amazes me is the willingness to quote and interpret canon law by those who are not trained to do so. Canon law is complex. Canon lawyers are highly trained, and even they often don’t agree on the proper interpretation. We should be relying on our Bishops to properly instruct our priests, and if there is a concern about abuse or violation of canon law, the Bishop is the proper person to bring the concern to.

In spite of that, here I am, quoting canon law. Canon 2 of the CCEO states:

This is the overriding principle for interpretation of the Code of Canons for Oriental Churches.

 

[Lapey]

One of the things on this board that amazes me is the willingness to quote and interpret canon law by those who are not trained to do so. Canon law is complex. Canon lawyers are highly trained, and even they often don’t agree on the proper interpretation. We should be relying on our Bishops to properly instruct our priests, and if there is a concern about abuse or violation of canon law, the Bishop is the proper person to bring the concern to.

In spite of that, here I am, quoting canon law. Canon 2 of the CCEO states:

This is the overriding principle for interpretation of the Code of Canons for Oriental Churches.

I’m not quite sure what happened to this thread but I will give a as well. Looks like there was some comment editing and deletions made.
[/quote]

 

[devoutchristian]

Our church does a monthly healing mass. Our pastor has preached about the sacrament and about how we all need healing of some kind, be it physical, spritiual, emotional, psychological and he encourages all to come and be annointed.

Well that’s wrong. Anointing of the sick is for those who are in some danger (proximate or remote) of death.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/09/quaeritur-who-should-receive-anointing-of-the-sick/

 

[Lapey]

Hey everyone. I was just wondering. Is proximate or remote (both) danger of death a requirement for the Anointing of the Sick? Can one receive the Anointing of the Sick if they have an illness and/or injury that makes one miserable?

Well that’s wrong. Anointing of the sick is for those who are in some danger (proximate or remote) of death.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/09/quaeritur-who-should-receive-anointing-of-the-sick/

Father Z’s blog is hardly an authority on the Sacraments.

I believe we need a little “middle of the road” common since applied here. Healing services where many people march up to receive the anointing of the sick I would say is an abuse, or at least can be. But to answer yes or no to any particular case is outside both yours and my pay grades. That would be up to the priests.

A person does not need to be almost dead to receive this sacrament. This is a serious issue and many people wait too late to call for a priest. There isn’t only a limited amount of time to administer this sacrament, it can be received more than once and is for healing, physical and spiritual. Reconciliation should be part of the sacrament if the person is conscience and coherent, but this is not required in grave circumstances.

I do agree the way you put it that there must be proximate or remote possibility of death; as in the case of anesthesia. There is danger of death any time a person is under general anesthesia.

On the other hand, if a person is trying to receive the sacrament for spiritual healing then that person should be referred to reconciliation.

 

[devoutchristian]

]A person does not need to be almost dead to receive this sacrament.

But they do need to begin to be in danger of death due to illness or old age (verbatim from canon law).

 

[Lapey]

But they do need to begin to be in danger of death due to illness or old age (verbatim from canon law).

A person undergoing general anesthesia is in danger of death. But in all cases the priest is the one who decides whether to administer the A of S or reconciliation, not us. Either way the two are connected if the recipient is coherent.

 

[devoutchristian]

A person undergoing general anesthesia is in danger of death. But in all cases the priest is the one who decides whether to administer the A of S or reconciliation, not us. Either way the two are connected if the recipient is coherent.

My point in referencing the article wasn’t to start a debate about administering Anointing to those who are about to undergo surgery, but to show that it is illicit to Anoint perfectly healthy people.

 

[Lapey]

My point in referencing the article wasn’t to start a debate about administering Anointing to those who are about to undergo surgery, but to show that it is illicit to Anoint perfectly healthy people.

I didn’t disagree with that…if I implied that I am sorry.