F
FrDavid96
Guest
Matthew,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.
Sorry. I wasn’t clear. I don’t mean that there’s a difference between pre- and post- Vatican II translations. What I mean is that post-VII translations imply that there’s a significant difference between what was before the council and what was after the council, so much so that the “2 sacraments” should be called by 2 entirely different names. In other words, they want to say that we don’t have a continuity, but a break so significant that we (almost) have 2 different sacraments, one post, one pre. To be more direct, they want us to think that the sacrament of unction was eliminated by Vatican II and an entirely new sacrament Anointing, was created to replace it.
As far as Viaticum and Anointing go, perhaps we should start over here (it might look to others like we’re arguing, which we aren’t–those who aren’t familiar with the 2 of us might see it that way). The ideal situation is that a dying person should receive all of the Last Rites of the Church–that means Confession, Anointing, Eucharist (as Viaticum) and the Apostolic Pardon. I think we need to keep that in mind, the best possible situation is all 4 of the rites. The reason why you’re seeing a “preference” for Viaticum over Anointing is that all the Graces we receive in Anointing can be received in Communion, but not all of those from Communion are received at Anointing (eg, we don’t receive the Body of Christ). That’s why the Church says if time is absolutely critical, do Communion first then do Anointing. The only difference I’m trying to articulate is the the Church doesn’t say to “prefer” Communion over Anointing, the Church still says “do both”, but do them in a different order, just in case the person does indeed die (the soul leaves the body) before the priest has the chance to anoint. In other words, I’m trying to say that it isn’t a question of “which one?” but a question of “in what order?” It’s like I said earlier, a priest should never actively choose not-to-do Anointing, so long as it’s possible.