Question regarding Anointing of the Sick

[dfp42]

I don’t think the staff at the care center are allowed to discuss or make arrangements through any directive other than the appointed care giver, but since your father in law has said that his mother is receiving communion, can’t you now discuss annointing with him and ensure that arrangments are in place for calling a priest in the event of extremis? Is the grandmother lucid enough to be part of such a discussion? I find most elderly do not fear death or talking about it. It’s we younger people who have trouble with it.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the staff members comment. Personally, I just want to make sure she as a Catholic will have the ability to be blessed by the sacraments. I personally would say that the grandmother is lucid enough to be part of the discussion. However, I’m not 100 percent sure my father in law thinks that as to some of the comments made in the past about her. I feel as if it’s harder for him to see how important this is to Catholics because he himself has fell away from the Catholic faith. I will however try to make this discussion to both of them to see where they might stand on it. I think the hardest thing is that people are scared sometimes to get the anointing, or have an old outlook on it as if you only need it when you are about to die within the last hour. I just worry that sometimes the elderly can get stuck in a rut at a nursing home and be discouraged thinking to them selves that their suffering has no meaning and that all they need to do is wake up, eat, sleep, take meds and watch tv 24 hrs to ease the pain. I truly feel bad for them. I see countless people at these nursing homes living this type of routine and it depresses me because Jesus should be at the high point of their lives and often I feel he is not. And some indifferent family members look at their loved ones as old and useless stuck in a nursing home.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Yes. In fact, we see exactly that in the continuation of #8 that I didn’t bother to type.

Although the Church is “competent” to determine what is a serious illness. Competent (in church-speak) means that the Church has the authority to do so. If we say that the Church isn’t “competent” that would mean that a priest would have to seek a doctor’s permission before administering Unction. So while the Church is competent to determine if someone is seriously ill, an individual priest might not necessarily have the specific expertise to do so, in a particular case, and needs to seek the advice of medical professionals.

What I meant is more or less is what you conclude your post with. With hindsight my chosen verb was perhaps not the best choice. I did not intend to suggest that priests need clearance from a doctor before administering the sacrament. Rather I was trying to say that if there was a doubt there is the option available to the priest to take medical advice.

I am sure that if someone said Father I hit my thumb with a hammer this morning can you please anoint me, you would I suspect refuse, all be it politely and with an explanation. If another person came and said Father I have been to the hospital this morning and was told I have an untreatable, terminal cancer and a prognosis of two months to live you’d probably anoint them. But you could be faced with a case where you could be unsure about whether anointing the person (thinking hard for an example) may be someone with chronic heart failure where they might die next week or could possibly live a few more years.

Obviously, I suspect that most cases (and obviously you’ll know this better than me as you’re someone asked to give this sacrament) it’s just down to good old common sense.

 

[PattiDay]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the staff members comment. Personally, I just want to make sure she as a Catholic will have the ability to be blessed by the sacraments. I personally would say that the grandmother is lucid enough to be part of the discussion. However, I’m not 100 percent sure my father in law thinks that as to some of the comments made in the past about her. I feel as if it’s harder for him to see how important this is to Catholics because he himself has fell away from the Catholic faith. I will however try to make this discussion to both of them to see where they might stand on it. I think the hardest thing is that people are scared sometimes to get the anointing, or have an old outlook on it as if you only need it when you are about to die within the last hour. I just worry that sometimes the elderly can get stuck in a rut at a nursing home and be discouraged thinking to them selves that their suffering has no meaning and that all they need to do is wake up, eat, sleep, take meds and watch tv 24 hrs to ease the pain. I truly feel bad for them. I see countless people at these nursing homes living this type of routine and it depresses me because Jesus should be at the high point of their lives and often I feel he is not. And some indifferent family members look at their loved ones as old and useless stuck in a nursing home.

I forget which movie star from the 19040’s said, “Getting old ain’t for sissies”. Whoever she was, she got it right.

 

[FrDavid96]

What I meant is more or less is what you conclude your post with. With hindsight my chosen verb was perhaps not the best choice. I did not intend to suggest that priests need clearance from a doctor before administering the sacrament. Rather I was trying to say that if there was a doubt there is the option available to the priest to take medical advice.

I am sure that if someone said Father I hit my thumb with a hammer this morning can you please anoint me, you would I suspect refuse, all be it politely and with an explanation. If another person came and said Father I have been to the hospital this morning and was told I have an untreatable, terminal cancer and a prognosis of two months to live you’d probably anoint them. But you could be faced with a case where you could be unsure about whether anointing the person (thinking hard for an example) may be someone with chronic heart failure where they might die next week or could possibly live a few more years.

Obviously, I suspect that most cases (and obviously you’ll know this better than me as you’re someone asked to give this sacrament) it’s just down to good old common sense.

The problem though, is that common sense aint all that common.

Many, many priests are abusing the idea that Unction is no longer for the dying and they are anointing people indiscriminately.* A few years ago, I replaced a pastor who would anoint anyone at anytime–quite literally, anyone anytime. He also had a practice of anointing everyone who happened to be present when he went to a hospital (or nursing home, or home) to anoint someone who was indeed seriously ill. It makes for some “pastoral challenges” to correct these misconceptions. I encounter that problem quite frequently. I’ve even had people get mad at me because I only anointed the sick person, and even had one person write a letter of complaint to the bishop because I only anoint sick people. It’s reached that point.

In your own example of hitting the thumb with a hammer: unfortunately there are many priests out there who would do anointing.

*And folks, I’m not just making that up. The Holy See has seen fit to address this problem, so it’s not just my own personal experience I’m writing about here.

 

[DJgang]

The problem though, is that common sense aint all that common.

Many, many priests are abusing the idea that Unction is no longer for the dying and they are anointing people indiscriminately.* A few years ago, I replaced a pastor who would anoint anyone at anytime–quite literally, anyone anytime. He also had a practice of anointing everyone who happened to be present when he went to a hospital (or nursing home, or home) to anoint someone who was indeed seriously ill. It makes for some “pastoral challenges” to correct these misconceptions. I encounter that problem quite frequently. I’ve even had people get mad at me because I only anointed the sick person, and even had one person write a letter of complaint to the bishop because I only anoint sick people. It’s reached that point.

In your own example of hitting the thumb with a hammer: unfortunately there are many priests out there who would do anointing.

*And folks, I’m not just making that up. The Holy See has seen fit to address this problem, so it’s not just my own personal experience I’m writing about here.

As a convert, making a pit stop through the ECUSA, I must say, the anointing of the sick has been one of the Sacraments that I have missed, if I must say it that way.

In my ECUSA, our Priest would take one Sunday morning a month and anoint those who wish to be anointed. I, personally, did not abuse this in any way, but had many graces received. Both spiritually and physically. I received anointing in early pregnancies, praying that I would just be able to carry my children to term. (as I had a history of miscarriages). My Priest was so willing to anoint and pray with me.

I do wish that the Catholic Church would be more open to this, anointing those who do feel the need.

I am sure that those who received from the previous pastor did receive graces.

God bless. Dana

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I do wish that the Catholic Church would be more open to this, anointing those who do feel the need.

That, I fear, is the first step down a dangerous path.

The Church does not administer the sacraments to those who “feel the need”. On that basis we would allow those Catholics who have obtained a civil dissolution of marriage and ‘re-married’ in a civil ceremony while their ‘former’ spouse is still living to receive Holy Communion because they “feel the need”.

In her wisdom the Church has decided that the sacrament of Anointing the Sick is only to be administered to certain individuals, not just anyone who wants to receive it.

 

[DJgang]

That, I fear, is the first step down a dangerous path.

The Church does not administer the sacraments to those who “feel the need”. On that basis we would allow those Catholics who have obtained a civil dissolution of marriage and ‘re-married’ in a civil ceremony while their ‘former’ spouse is still living to receive Holy Communion because they “feel the need”.

In her wisdom the Church has decided that the sacrament of Anointing the Sick is only to be administered to certain individuals, not just anyone who wants to receive it.

I do not think being more open to who receives the Sacrament will led to all that other stuff you mentioned…gosh.

I do not think that it would be a dangerous path at all for Priests to be more open to administering this Sacrament to people who may be mentally sick, spiritually sick … not everyone who is “sick” is on the death bed. You’ve just be diagnosed with pre cancerous cells, what will it hurt to be anointed? You’ve just been told that you may not carry your baby to term … what will it hurt to be anointed?

It’s just my opinion and you have yours. I can just see the people of the Church receiving wonderful graces from this sacrament if it were more open. That’s all. So I won’t apologize for my opinion, yet I will honor and abide by the Church and I will not ask for anointing unless I"m nearly dead and I hope that maybe my nonCatholic family can contact my parish if that occurs.

 

[FrDavid96]

I do not think being more open to who receives the Sacrament will led to all that other stuff you mentioned…gosh.

I do not think that it would be a dangerous path at all for Priests to be more open to administering this Sacrament to people who may be mentally sick, spiritually sick … not everyone who is “sick” is on the death bed. You’ve just be diagnosed with pre cancerous cells, what will it hurt to be anointed? You’ve just been told that you may not carry your baby to term … what will it hurt to be anointed?

It’s just my opinion and you have yours. I can just see the people of the Church receiving wonderful graces from this sacrament if it were more open. That’s all. So I won’t apologize for my opinion, yet I will honor and abide by the Church and I will not ask for anointing unless I"m nearly dead and I hope that maybe my nonCatholic family can contact my parish if that occurs.

Dana,
It IS more open. That’s exactly what the Church did in the wake of Vatican II–opened the definition of who could receive the Sacrament to other-than-the-dying. The problem though is that this openness is being taken too far in many places and by certain individual priests.

 

[DJgang]

Dana,
It IS more open. That’s exactly what the Church did in the wake of Vatican II–opened the definition of who could receive the Sacrament to other-than-the-dying. The problem though is that this openness is being taken too far in many places and by certain individual priests.

I guess that I have just never seen the opportunity for people have anointing. Is this only done privately? I converted in 2008 and have only attended the same parish. I am totally under the impression that one can only receive if they are about to die

 

[FrDavid96]

I guess that I have just never seen the opportunity for people have anointing. Is this only done privately? I converted in 2008 and have only attended the same parish. I am totally under the impression that one can only receive if they are about to die

Mostly, it is done in private, but that’s mere coincidence–nothing more. Most people who are seriously ill are going to be in the hospital, or nursing home, or at home under the care of loved ones. It doesn’t mean they have to be, it just means that this is how things usually work out.

One does not need to be at the point of death to be anointed. In fact, at that point, the Sacrament should already have been administered. Someone gave you the wrong information in telling you that it’s only for those about to die. It is, however, limited to the “seriously ill”

See my earlier post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7432156&postcount=13 where I quoted the way the Church phrases who should be anointed.

Again, here’s the translator’s note: “On the one hand, the sacrament may and should be given to anyone whose health is seriously impaired; on the other hand, it may not be given indiscriminately to any person whose health is not seriously impaired.”

 

[zab]

Yes. The Church does not actually and specifically define what’s meant by “sick” because that’s just not possible.

Here’s what the General Introduction to Pastoral Care of the Sick (the GIRM for anointing, so to speak) has to say:

8…Great care and concern should be taken to see that those of the faithful whose health is seriously impaired by sickness or old age receive this sacrament.** A prudent or reasonably sure judgment, without scruple, is sufficient for deciding on the seriousness of an illness.**

There’s also a translator’s footnote: The word periculose has been carefully studied and rendered as “seriously” rather than as “gravely” or “dangerously” or “perilously.” Such a rendering will serve to avoid restrictions upon the celebration of the sacrament. On the one hand, the sacrament may and should be given to anyone whose health is seriously impaired; on the other hand, it may not be given indiscriminately to any person whose health is not seriously impaired.

In other words, we cannot take this to either extreme. Anointing is not limited to those whose death is imminent; but at the same time, it is not expanded so much that “any” illness makes one eligible for anointing. Unfortunately, as the Church has put emphasis on the first, too many people have ignored the later. Anointing/Unction is not appropriately administered to one who is not seriously ill. That means that age alone (no more distinction than a number of years) is not a reason for the sacrament, and that those who may indeed have some kind of illness, but that illness is not serious are likewise not appropriate recipients.

In my own experience as a priest, I have seen much more by way of inappropriate requests for anointing than I have seen attempts to delay the sacrament unduly.

I’ve had requests to anoint all the family members who are present in the hospital room, for example. I’ve had requests from people to anoint them for headaches and minor colds (people who are otherwise in good general health). I’ve had requests to anoint everyone who attends a certain Mass (“Father, will you hold a healing Mass where we can all be anointed?”)

In other words, we’ve all heard and received the message that Unction is not only for the dying. We can check that one off the list. It’s done. The problem is that too many people have taken this too far.

It isn’t merely a “need for spiritual and/or emotional healing” because we are in need of such all the time. The standard to be applied is “the faithful whose health is seriously impaired.”

I guess I fit into the category of not being “reasonably sure…without scruple”. Diabetes is a serious thing to deal with even though I have managed to keep from taking insulin so far. And I keep telling my self that my painful joints could be worse. The truth is I hate going to the doctor and I try not go unless I absolutely have to or to reasonably keep up with my diabetes check ups. So there is also a kind of reluctance to go to the Anointing Mass because of not being “reasonably sure…without scruple.” It seems to me that the Anointing of the Sick is supposed to give grace to people, strengthening them to carry whatever cross of sickness they may have. It is not called the Anointing of the dying. It is called the Anointing of the Sick. But I don’t want to abuse the sacrament…so I guess I will remain scrupulous.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I do not think being more open to who receives the Sacrament will led to all that other stuff you mentioned…gosh.

It’s just my opinion and you have yours.

I’m afraid you’ve missed the point.

It has nothing to do with your opinion or mine. It’s about what the Church decides. She decides under what circumstances her members can receive the sacraments.

You said they should be allowed to receive them in if they “feel the need”. That is not the case. It’s not a matter of my opinion. It’s what the Church teaches and does! We receive the sacraments under the conditions she determines; not when we feel the need.

The sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is not for those who only have moments to live. A constant teaching of the Church since Vatican II (not my opinion). Unfortunately, many have taken it to the opposite extreme: that they should be anointed whenever they want and for whatever reason they want. Some priests accede to these requests. From this people draw the wrong conclusion: “Father does it so it must be OK.”. Unfortunately, not all priests do everything as the Church requires. Just because some priests will administer this sacrament under any conditions does not mean they are doing so in accordance with the Church’s teaching.

This sacrament is reserved to those who are ‘seriously’ ill. Obviously a problem arises in determining what is ‘serious’. If you were to ask let’s say three people for a definition of serious illness you will probably get three different definitions. If you were to read the actual liturgical book you would find that while the Church does not explicitly define the term ‘serious’ she makes it clear that it is not to be administered for any disease. It does talk about a person’s final illness. It infers that while the sacrament is not to be reserved until a person is minutes away from death it is to be used if there is a reasonable presumption that this is the person’s final illness.

So, it’s not a matter of opinion as to who receives the sacrament. It’s to be determined according to the Church’s teaching. There is some room for discretion but it is not a sacrament intended for anyone who just feels like receiving it.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

To add to what I said in Post #32 and I think I’ve said in another post on this thread: the Church does not teach that the Anointing of the Sick should be our final sacrament. The sacrament of the dying, if there is such a thing, is Viaticum. It is more important that we receive Viaticum before we die than Anointing of the Sick. This is made abundantly clear in the liturgical book Pastoral Care of the Sick and I believe there is a canon in CIC 1983 that states this too.

 

[FrDavid96]

I guess I fit into the category of not being “reasonably sure…without scruple”. Diabetes is a serious thing to deal with even though I have managed to keep from taking insulin so far. And I keep telling my self that my painful joints could be worse. The truth is I hate going to the doctor and I try not go unless I absolutely have to or to reasonably keep up with my diabetes check ups. So there is also a kind of reluctance to go to the Anointing Mass because of not being “reasonably sure…without scruple.” It seems to me that the Anointing of the Sick is supposed to give grace to people, strengthening them to carry whatever cross of sickness they may have. It is not called the Anointing of the dying. It is called the Anointing of the Sick. But I don’t want to abuse the sacrament…so I guess I will remain scrupulous.

The problem with those Anointing Masses (as we typically see them done) is that they lack any discernment on the part of the priest as to who is eligible. It comes down to the part you highlighted: “A prudent or reasonably sure judgment…” If there’s no judgement (by that I mean, no discernment, no decision-making, no consideration given to who is being anointed), then the Sacrament is not being administered properly or responsibly.

When a priest simply walks out and says “who would like to be anointed today?” or even worse “everyone who comes to this Mass will be anointed” he is seriously neglecting his responsibilities and he is belittling the Sacrament.

It’s the priest who needs to make that decision. It’s not a matter of individual persons deciding for themselves when/if they should be anointed–although there’s the obvious step of approaching or informing the priest in the first place. “Without scruple” means that the priest should not delay the anointing unnecessarily, in other words, saying to himself “just to be on the safe side, I won’t anoint anyone unless I know he’s about to die.”

It is the Sacrament of the Sick (yet it can also be called the Sacrament of the Dying if that’s indeed the case). It’s for the seriously ill. We cannot take that to either extreme of anointing only the dying or anointing anyone.

 

[FrDavid96]

To add to what I said in Post #32 and I think I’ve said in another post on this thread: the Church does not teach that the Anointing of the Sick should be our final sacrament. The sacrament of the dying, if there is such a thing, is Viaticum. It is more important that we receive Viaticum before we die than Anointing of the Sick. This is made abundantly clear in the liturgical book Pastoral Care of the Sick and I believe there is a canon in CIC 1983 that states this too.

We posted over each other. My intent was not to contradict what you had posted. However, in the Apostolic Constitution on the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, Pope Paul VI repeated what was said at Trent about anointing “…it is also called the Sacrament of the dying…”

 

[Matthew_Holford]

We posted over each other. My intent was not to contradict what you had posted. However, in the Apostolic Constitution on the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, Pope Paul VI repeated what was said at Trent about anointing “…it is also called the Sacrament of the dying…”

That is an interesting point to raise. IMHO it could undermine the Church’s attempt to teach us that this sacrament is not to be reserved until death is imminent. Which is why it’s name was changed from Extreme Unction. The Roman Ritual: Pastoral Care of the Sick states in its prænotanda that it is more important for the dying to receive Viaticum than Anointing of the Sick.

If there is time it is appropriate to confess, be anointed, and receive Viaticum. It also recommends that these three sacraments are received on separate occasions. BUT if time is of the essence Viaticum is to be given in preference to anointing.

 

[FrDavid96]

That is an interesting point to raise. IMHO it could undermine the Church’s attempt to teach us that this sacrament is not to be reserved until death is imminent. Which is why it’s name was changed from Extreme Unction. The Roman Ritual: Pastoral Care of the Sick states in its prænotanda that it is more important for the dying to receive Viaticum than Anointing of the Sick.

If there is time it is appropriate to confess, be anointed, and receive Viaticum. It also recommends that these three sacraments are received on separate occasions. BUT if time is of the essence Viaticum is to be given in preference to anointing.

This gets subtle. If the situation is “extreme” then it’s still called “extreme Unction.” Same with “Sacrament of the Dying” It can be called that, but that doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate to call it that. So we have to use the term “Sacrament of the Dying” with reservations–only if that describes the particular situation, and not any other time. The Church often gives us “alternate” names for the Sacraments, so this isn’t something to make too much of an issue about. “It can be called Sacrament of the Dying” is just one more possibility to add to the list.

What happened is that the English language translators in the 1960’s and 70s came up with a clever little device. The Latin word is “Unctionis” (or Unctio etc.) but the English equivalent is “Unction.” At the same time, “unctionis” can also be translated as “anointing” Same thing. No difference at all. But what the translators did was to employ a little trick. When referring to the sacrament before Vatican II, they use the word unction. When referring to it after Vatican II, they use anointing. They do it sometimes even in the very same sentence. See the usual translations of the Vatican II documents. The English words unction and anointing are completely interchangeable, but they create an artificial dichotomy by using one word or the other. The Latin word never changed, it was unctionis before Vatican II and unctionis during and after the Council. But by using two different English words, it gives one the impression that there is somehow a difference between unction and anointing.

Here’s what I mean. Look at SC #73. Here’s the typical English translation

1. “Extreme unction”, which may also and more fittingly be called “anointing of the sick”, is not a Sacrament only for those 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 fitting time for him to receive this Sacrament has certainly already arrived.

Now here’s the Latin

1. “Extrema Unctio”, quae etiam et melius “Unctio infirmorum” vocari potest, non est Sacramentum eorum tantum qui in extremo vitae discrimine versantur. Proinde tempus opportunum eam recipiendi iam certe habetur cum fidelis incipit esse in periculo mortis propter infirmitatem vel senium.

Note that the Latin uses the same word “Unctio” in both instances, yet the translators use “unction” for one, and “anointing” for the other.
What’s the difference? There is none. But the translators want to make it appear as if there is a difference by using two different English words.

There’s a definite pattern we see where the translators use “unction” in reference to pre-Vatican II and “anointing” in reference to post VII. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

This gets subtle. If the situation is “extreme” then it’s still called “extreme Unction.” Same with “Sacrament of the Dying” It can be called that, but that doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate to call it that. So we have to use the term “Sacrament of the Dying” with reservations–only if that describes the particular situation, and not any other time. The Church often gives us “alternate” names for the Sacraments, so this isn’t something to make too much of an issue about. “It can be called Sacrament of the Dying” is just one more possibility to add to the list.

What happened is that the English language translators in the 1960’s and 70s came up with a clever little device. The Latin word is “Unctionis” (or Unctio etc.) but the English equivalent is “Unction.” At the same time, “unctionis” can also be translated as “anointing” Same thing. No difference at all. But what the translators did was to employ a little trick. When referring to the sacrament before Vatican II, they use the word unction. When referring to it after Vatican II, they use anointing. They do it sometimes even in the very same sentence. See the usual translations of the Vatican II documents. The English words unction and anointing are completely interchangeable, but they create an artificial dichotomy by using one word or the other. The Latin word never changed, it was unctionis before Vatican II and unctionis during and after the Council. But by using two different English words, it gives one the impression that there is somehow a difference between unction and anointing.

Here’s what I mean. Look at SC #73. Here’s the typical English translation

1. “Extreme unction”, which may also and more fittingly be called “anointing of the sick”, is not a Sacrament only for those 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 fitting time for him to receive this Sacrament has certainly already arrived.

Now here’s the Latin

1. “Extrema Unctio”, quae etiam et melius “Unctio infirmorum” vocari potest, non est Sacramentum eorum tantum qui in extremo vitae discrimine versantur. Proinde tempus opportunum eam recipiendi iam certe habetur cum fidelis incipit esse in periculo mortis propter infirmitatem vel senium.

Note that the Latin uses the same word “Unctio” in both instances, yet the translators use “unction” for one, and “anointing” for the other.
What’s the difference? There is none. But the translators want to make it appear as if there is a difference by using two different English words.

There’s a definite pattern we see where the translators use “unction” in reference to pre-Vatican II and “anointing” in reference to post VII. Coincidence? I think not.

I am not sure what point you are making. You appear to be suggesting that in some way the translators are out to trick us by sometimes using the word unction and sometimes the word anointing. I can only guess that you think people see ‘unction’ as the sacrament reserved to the dying and ‘anointing’ referring to a situation where it’s OK for any one to be anointed any old time. As I say I’m only guessing as I’m not sure what point you’re making.

I’m more confused because you have provided an explanation about this translation issue in response to a point I raised about whether, if time is limited, the Church says it’s more important to receive Holy Communion as Viaticum immediately before death or whether the priest should put blessed holy oil on them, whether you want to call that anointing or unction. My understanding is (and I may have misunderstood what the liturgical book says) is that if there isn’t time to give Viaticum and anointing/unction before a person dies then the Church’s preference is to give Viaticum.

[Obviously, the person has to be conscious and capable of swallowing the sacred species; whereas, if unconscious they can still receive anointing/unction.]

 

[FrDavid96]

I am not sure what point you are making. You appear to be suggesting that in some way the translators are out to trick us by sometimes using the word unction and sometimes the word anointing. I can only guess that you think people see ‘unction’ as the sacrament reserved to the dying and ‘anointing’ referring to a situation where it’s OK for any one to be anointed any old time. As I say I’m only guessing as I’m not sure what point you’re making.

I’m more confused because you have provided an explanation about this translation issue in response to a point I raised about whether, if time is limited, the Church says it’s more important to receive Holy Communion as Viaticum immediately before death or whether the priest should put blessed holy oil on them, whether you want to call that anointing or unction. My understanding is (and I may have misunderstood what the liturgical book says) is that if there isn’t time to give Viaticum and anointing/unction before a person dies then the Church’s preference is to give Viaticum.

[Obviously, the person has to be conscious and capable of swallowing the sacred species; whereas, if unconscious they can still receive anointing/unction.]

On the second half: I wouldn’t say that the Church “prefers” Viaticum over Anointing. What it comes down to is the the Church says that the order for the sacraments is confession, anointing, then Viaticum, but if time is of the essence, it should be confession, Viaticum, then anointing. The purpose here is that if someone is dying in a matter of seconds, give Viaticum first, but not in the sense of a priest making a conscious decision to omit the anointing in favor of Viaticum. Subtle difference. As a priest, I should never “decide” to omit a sacrament when a person is in need and eligible. In other words, the Church never says “don’t anoint” (when anointing is appropriate).

On a practical level, as I see it, I cannot imagine a scenario where I would give Viaticum but not anoint (unless of course, I’m in some situation where I don’t have the holy oil with me). What I mean by that is that if a person is able to receive Communion, then the chances that the person will die immediately after receiving the Host but without enough time for anointing (which only takes a few seconds) are almost non-existent. A person so very close to death would likely not be able to receive Communion in the first place. Even so, we don’t know when the soul leaves the body, so if a person were to “expire” immediately after receiving the Host, I would still anoint because of the very real possibility that there is still life there even though there’s no breathing, the heart has stopped, etc. After all, I wouldn’t “waste time” checking for a pulse, I would anoint first then check for a pulse.

On the first half:

What I see is a tendency in translations to create a false dichotomy between “unction” and “anointing” as if people are trying to say “Unction doesn’t exist anymore, the Sacrament has been eliminated and replaced with the Sacrament of Anointing” And I’m not just making this up either. Look through your copy of Pastoral Care of the Sick and see how those 2 words are used. Look at the translations of the Vatican II documents and see how they’re used. There is a definite pattern there. When references are made to pre-Vatican II unction is always used, but when referring to post-council anointing is always used. The example I posted shows it quite clearly.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

On the second half: I wouldn’t say that the Church “prefers” Viaticum over Anointing. What it comes down to is the the Church says that the order for the sacraments is confession, anointing, then Viaticum, but if time is of the essence, it should be confession, Viaticum, then anointing. The purpose here is that if someone is dying in a matter of seconds, give Viaticum first, but not in the sense of a priest making a conscious decision to omit the anointing in favor of Viaticum. Subtle difference. As a priest, I should never “decide” to omit a sacrament when a person is in need and eligible. In other words, the Church never says “don’t anoint” (when anointing is appropriate).

On a practical level, as I see it, I cannot imagine a scenario where I would give Viaticum but not anoint (unless of course, I’m in some situation where I don’t have the holy oil with me). What I mean by that is that if a person is able to receive Communion, then the chances that the person will die immediately after receiving the Host but without enough time for anointing (which only takes a few seconds) are almost non-existent. A person so very close to death would likely not be able to receive Communion in the first place. Even so, we don’t know when the soul leaves the body, so if a person were to “expire” immediately after receiving the Host, I would still anoint because of the very real possibility that there is still life there even though there’s no breathing, the heart has stopped, etc. After all, I wouldn’t “waste time” checking for a pulse, I would anoint first then check for a pulse.

On the first half:

What I see is a tendency in translations to create a false dichotomy between “unction” and “anointing” as if people are trying to say “Unction doesn’t exist anymore, the Sacrament has been eliminated and replaced with the Sacrament of Anointing” And I’m not just making this up either. Look through your copy of Pastoral Care of the Sick and see how those 2 words are used. Look at the translations of the Vatican II documents and see how they’re used. There is a definite pattern there. When references are made to pre-Vatican II unction is always used, but when referring to post-council anointing is always used. The example I posted shows it quite clearly.

I understand that you are saying that pre-Vatican II translations said ‘unction’ and post-Vatican II translations say ‘anointing’. What difference are you saying this means? The dictionary says unction means to anoint with oil or the oil used for that purpose.

I will not discuss the point about anointing and viaticum further: you will probably have studied sacramental theology, received training in this area, and have pastoral experience. I am at a disadvantage as I can only cite what I’ve read. As I read it in the liturgical book, and it makes this point on more than one occasion, is that viaticum is seen as more important as the final sacrament than anointing. What I believe it is doing is emphasising the point that anointing shouldn’t be held off until the moment of death is near. That’s why I raised it in a previous post to show that anointing is no longer seen as something that isn’t given until the person is near death. I understand that there may in practice be situations where anointing can be given but not viaticum: the person is unable to swallow, they’re unconscious, they must just have died but this isn’t certain.