Question regarding Deacons Annointing the Sick

  • Thread starter Thread starter rabarts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dolly all I have done was quote the document of the church and faithfully identified her words.

Two key documents concerning the formation of deacons are: The basic norms for the formation of permanent deacons and directory for the Ministry and life of permanent deacons. Neither of these documents includes the use of oil as sacramentals for anointing the sick under diaconal duties.

They do say that deacons are to prepare the sick for the Sacrament of Anointing by a priest and that they are allowed to use sacramentals in those areas that are "expressly permitted by law" that are closely linked to “their ecclesial and sacramental life”.

The sacramental character of priest is to administer the sick with oil not a deacon.

It is serious to pretend that a phrase like “the administration of sacramentals” can mean anything that a deacon wants it to mean. Why stop at oil? What about blessing bread and wine for the sick too? Creating pseudo or simulated sacramental activities is not just a technical error but problematic for ones soul.

Since nothing in canon law expressly states that a deacon can conduct a blessing with oil then the practice is illicit and does not need to be specifically condemned by Rome. The fact that eight diacasteries and the Pope has rejected the practice of anyone other than priests and bishops from using any type of oil in public ministry of the sick is about as clear as it gets.
 
I am not trying to be arrogant, only to understand the definitive instruction from the church, if there is one. But I do sense some arrogance coming from your side and unfortunately lies about what I have said and implied, and that more than once.

“Dolly all I have done was quote the document of the church and faithfully identified her words.” No, you have not faithfully identified her words but you added extra words and your interpretation of what they meant.

You gave the listing of what you call two key documents concerning the formation of deacons: The basic norms for the formation of permanent deacons and the directory for the Ministry and life of permanent deacons. You have said that neither includes the use of oil as sacramentals for annointing the sick under diaconal duties. What you did not say was: (1) do they specifically condemn that use, and (2) do they list the use of any and all sacramentals to be used by deacons and how they are to be used?

You also say that in the documents you listed that deacons are allowed to use sacramentals in those areas that are “expressly permitted by law” and that are closely linked to “their ecclesial and sacramental life”. What are those ‘areas’ “expressly permitted by law” that are closely linked to “their ecclesial and sacramental life”? It seems to be very clear to you, please make it clear and specific for me also.

In other words, are all the duties and rights of a deacon expressly spelled out in all aspects with a specific list of does and donts with no consideration that they themselves will know what is "closely linked to their ecclesial and sacramental life’ and proceed correctly?

You have been untrue in your statement to me saying, “it is serious to pretend that a phrase like “the administration of sacramentals” can mean anything that a deacon wants it to mean”. That statement is a lie and the complete opposite of what I have said. (Did you say you were studying for the diaconate?) If your argument is so firm and certain, why do you need to lie about what I said or implied? I believe you know clearly what I said and meant, you just don’t want to address the issue and answer the main question I asked you:

Do you believe the duties of a deacon as I listed them to be performed In Place of a priest cause confusion and scandal among the faithful? That was the point of the oil as a sacramental. That was the main point of contention about the oil and a deacon, that of confusion and scandal to others. If the proper duties performed In Place of a priest don’t cause scandal when performed by an ordained deacon, why will either a blessing or oil do so as a sacramental if it is allowed (and you have yet to prove otherwise)?

You state that nothing in canon law expressly states that a deacon can conduct a blessing with oil therefore the practice is illicit. But you have not shown that every aspect of a deacons duties are restricted by a specific list, so just because it is not expressly stated, it would not seem it is expressly forbidden and illicit when it is not meant to take the place of a priest or Sacrament. If it is officially stated otherwise with no ambiguity, then give that documentation. (Again, whether it is prudent might be another consideration, but you still haven’t proved definitively the point you are making—that it is forbidden).

You go on to say for that reason it does not need to be specifically condemned by Rome, BUT THEN, go right on to say that the Pope has rejected the practice of ANYONE other than priests and bishops from using ANY type of oil in public ministry. That is talking out of both sides of your mouth-----if the Pope has thus spoken, specifically and specifically referring also to deacons, then please feel free to document all you want. If you know about it, you should be able to find documentation. Why say it doesn’t have to be condemned by Rome but then that it really is?

Please don’t accuse me of false statements but then give undocumented statements yourself that you then proceed to interpret yourself. Oil used as a sacramental by a deacon may not be prudent, but you have yet given proof, only your interpretation, that it is formally forbidden. (And why would statements to the effect of being forbidden be ambiguous or general of it is of that importance-----if it is so wrong and specifically forbidden then produce what I need so i can inform the deacon I know.)
 
I am not a liar and I am not accusing you of anything. :confused:

This is what canon law states about sacramentals and deacons:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P46.HTM

TITLE I: SACRAMENTALS

Can. 1166 Sacramentals are sacred signs which in a sense imitate the sacraments. They signify certain effects, especially spiritual ones, and they achieve these effects through the intercession of the Church.
Can. 1167 §1 Only the Apostolic See can establish new sacramentals,or authentically interpret, suppress or change existing ones.
§2 **The rites and the formulae approved by ecclesiastical authority are to be accurately observed when celebrating or administering sacramentals. **
Can. 1168 The minister of the sacramentals is a cleric who has the requisite power. In accordance with the liturgical books and subject to the judgment of the local Ordinary, certain sacramentals can also be administered by lay people who possess the appropriate qualities.
Can. 1169 §1 Consecrations and dedications can be validly carried out by those who are invested with the episcopal character, and by priests who are permitted to do so by law or by legitimate grant.
§2 Any priest can impart blessings, except for those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or to Bishops.
**§3 A deacon can impart only those blessings which are expressly permitted to him by law. **

I have never found a document produced by Rome that includes in its list of duties the use of oil in blessing the sick for deacons. Yes Rome does produce documents that list what a deacon is ordained to do and provides the rubrics of the blessings they are permitted to give.

If you know of a document that permits the blessing of the sick with oil in public ministry by deacons then I would be interested in reading it because I am a rather humble man who accepts correction quite well.

Until I hear otherwise I will once again refer to you the 1997 document Ecclesia de Mysterio. The reason why the laity cannot use oil when they bless/annoint(small a) the sick is not because they aren’t deacons; it is because they are not priests:

"Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or ony other oil."

God Bless
 
At the time I wrote the last post I was extremely frustrated that the words I was using and the intent behind them had seemed to me to be misinterpreted by you and another poster multiple times. I should not have used the word lie, but couldn’t understand why words were being put in my mouth :confused: Because I was told differently, specifically, about the use of blessed oil by a deacon (that it wasn’t forbidden, but as I said, may not be prudent or even necessary), I just wanted clarification for myself and to pass it on if necessary. I have not been trying to argue for argument sake (and this medium does not let that fact come across too easily) and I too am willing to be corrected.

I too have been doing some research tonight and looked up and read the norms and directory you listed as well as the CIC and Vat II documents. The question I was left with after reading all I did, was when the documents state “expressly permitted to him by law”, where do I find whatever it is that lists what is expressly permitted? Do you receive those documents (books?) when you are ordained as deacon that lists the duties and rubrics of the blessings? I don’t personally know of a document that allows (or forbids) the blessing of the sick with oil in public ministry by a deacon and that was precisely what I have been trying to find out 🙂

I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the documents that you have read or know about in case I could possibly access them and pass the information on (if my deacon relative doesn’t already have them, but am assuming he should have). In fact, from what I read tonight there seems that there should be a specific list of sacramentals allowed, do you know of such? In fact, in Can. 1168 it states that there are also certain sacramentals that can be administered by laity. Is there also a specific listing of these—in the rubrics for the blessings or somewhere else that you may know of?

Interestingly the discussion was about confusion and scandal among the laity, and yet when you read the definition of sacramentals, “Sacred signs which bear a ‘resemblance’ to the sacraments (and) signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature which are obtained through Christ’s intercession”, and also the ministry of a deacon, “A deacon may therefore impart those blessings closely linked to ‘ecclesial and sacramental’ life which are expressly permitted to him by law”, istm that much of the argument was against a deacon doing anything that might confuse his role with a priest and the sacraments, including blessed oil; but the above definitions say just the opposite-----that sacramentals ‘bear a resemblance to the sacraments and signify effects’ and that deacons ‘impart those blessings closely linked to ecclesial and sacramental life’. The use of sacramentals by a deacon (properly and not meaning ‘anything a deacon might want’) are anything but an imitation or simulation of a sacrament that can only be performed by a priest. In fact, if a lay person can administer certain sacramentals, it really doesn’t sound like the church is worried, in that respect, about a confusion of roles or scandal in the use of those sacramentals.

I wasn’t arguing that a deacon had a right to use blessed oil or do whatever he wanted, but that the accusation of confusion and scandal is false primarily because of how the church defines the diaconate and the ordained role that a deacon has to play in both Sacraments and sacramentals. Thus my other question regarding the deacon’s ministry in word and sacrament.

BTW, I have never figured out how to do the quote thingy or cut and paste into the window. That’s why everything is so boringly typed out! :o

Thank you and God bless
 
This will be my last post on this subject, as I find Dolly’s postings to be inflammatory, argumentative, and not at all helpful.

My advice to you is to:

A) Go the the library of your nearest Major seminary and spend a day with Canon Law,

or

B) Find yourself a Canon lawyer. Your Chancery should be able to help you locate one.

I think Deacon 2006 presented a very clear and lucid answer to you, and quoted the source. You, on the other hand, did not care for his answer, so you continue to harangue him until you see something in print you agree with. I’m sorry - you will not find it here. Because there is no reason for a deacon to use Blessed Oil on the sick (besides, only the BISHOP can bless the Holy Oils - thereby the reason for Chrism Mass). You will not find what you are looking for from a valid source, so I hope you find peace.

God bless,
Sue
 
Dear Sue,

LOL, I believe you have dyslexia (plus sadly being a very angry and judgmental woman). God truly is in charge, neither you or I.

My last post to Deacon 2006 was a conversation. And yes dear, if you could read you would see that I read everything he mentioned, plus canon law and Vat. II documents and DID NOT disagree with what he said, only asked for more information from him, NOT to try to insist on ANYTHING about blessed oil (I may need to yell, you don’t seem to be able to understand the words)! Please, if you can’t read correctly and with the intent posted, don’t respond----that you accuse someone of something they have denied and in fact want the correct information about should make you do an examination of conscience!

I spoke of what a high position deacons have when they perform their proper AND MAY I ADD REQUIRED duties, quoting from words that are in the Vat. II documents, canon law, and the documents pertaining to permanent deacons. I am truly interested in what are the approved sacramentals of the church (thus a list or written information) and…Just in case you missed the reference, in the Vat. II document and canon law, it says that “certain sacramentals can also be administered by lay people who possess the appropriate qualities”. Now, please tell us, as I am assuming you yourself are a lay person, have you seen an explanation of that permission and what it “expressly permits by law”? Do you know there are sacramentals permitted to be administered by lay people?

You have accused most of the laity of being ignorant of their faith (except you of course) and seem to be running chicken little like screaming how they are going to be so confused and scandalized by actions of a deacon. So why now, all of a sudden, do you want to shut me up when I (respectfully, humbly and willing to be corrected about incorrect views),
ask for someone to direct me to more information on the proper and correct church teachings?

It is probably a good thing that was your last post because it does doesn’t look at all like you really want the laity to know what the church teaches, only what you teach. And even if you did answer, it would be incorrect because you don’t read words, you judge intents and that incorrectly. (And since my relative who is a deacon is in a small diocese he has ready access to the bishop so getting information there should be no problem if I ask him to do so.) I just assumed (maybe incorrectly) that Deacon 2006 was a candidate for the diaconate and therefore also had more ready access to information. I merely asked him how the deacons know what is “expressly permitted by law” and where that is found.

You, my dear, I am afraid are the one who needs more peace and needs to let go of the haranguing. I’m sorry this has been so stressful for you, it has been informative for me.
 
General reminder:

It is understandable that feelings are going to run hot when people are strongly convinced that their understanding of a particular Church requirement is correct. However, the forum guidelines you all agreed to when you registered require that one limit oneself to discussing the issues charitably. If you read a post that frustrates or infuriates you, put off responding to it until you are able to do so calmly and charitably.

As the Church’s documents have been quoted with the expectations of the Church regarding the Anointing of the Sick and the use of sacramentals (thank you, Deacon2006), this thread will now be locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top