Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick

[FrDavid96]

Simulating a sacrament is sacrilegious, no?

Generally, yes. But there’s more to it than that.
Sacrilege requires intent or at least for the act to be so objectively offensive that merely doing it is enough.

I do not think that a priest who wrongly administers Anointing is intending any offense. He might (and I say might) be at fault for something else, but I would absolutely not call it a sacrilege.

I’ll trust the canon law of the Eastern Churches on this matter.

It’s not that simple. Canon Law and Liturgical Law are equal to each other in the mind of the Church. The Church seeks harmony among the various forms of law.

The way that you personally read the Eastern Code might not be the same way the Eastern bishops read it. There is also the element that the Eastern Law is not always authentically Eastern. A good example of this is that it took from 1990 to about 2 years ago for the Eastern Code to finally be revised to accurately reflect Eastern theology that the priest (not the couple) is the minister of Marriage. Oddly enough, this comment was made in the “Instruction” that accompanied the Code, but poorly written in the Code itself. The vast majority of the Eastern Code is (in reality, like it or not) a cut-and-paste from the 1983 Latin Code, with some changes with regard to the Patriarchs and Synods, and with much of the liturgical canons of the West omitted.

My point here is not to say ONLY “I trust the Eastern Code” but to trust all of the Laws of the Eastern Churches, and that includes their liturgical laws.

The Anointing during Holy Week in the Eastern Churches simply does not “fit” into the Western understanding of Anointing. It’s part of the legitimate Eastern patrimony and their liturgical heritage. Latin Catholics need to respect that—even if it means that a Latin person might avoid participating in such a service if he finds it personally uncomfortable.

The Eastern Synods do have the authority to govern their own liturgical practices. Latin Catholics might not always understand them, but we do need to respect them. They are no less legitimate than those of the West.

Interesting. But since the Sacrament of Anointing can only be administered to the seriously ill, as a matter of sacramental theology… and canon law …, this must be a sacramental, not the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick (just as the use of chrism in priestly and episcopal ordinations is not confirmation).

Again, this is where we need to let the Eastern Churches speak for themselves.

Suffice to say that there is a variety of theology on this matter, varying not only from one person to another, but among the Eastern Churches themselves.

So long as the priest is following the duly approved liturgical texts approved by his own Synod, we can be certain that the service is legitimate. Latins might not always understand it, but the bishops of those Synods do understand it and they have every authority (not just canonically but spiritually speaking) to approve their own Rites.

 

[Spyridon]

@FrDavid96 ,

Beautifully, articulately, accurately explained Fr. David.

 

[babochka]

I looked it up and apparently this was a practice which arose post-schism in (certain parts of) Eastern Orthodoxy. I’ll need a source for the claim that this has been permitted for Eastern Catholics, or that it is ancient in origin. That some Eastern parishes may have decided to do it illicitly is believable, but no more evidence for it being licit (or even valid) than the fact that some Latin parishes do it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05716a.htm

“Subject” #3

Are you under the impression that Eastern Catholics only follow pre-schism practices of Eastern Orthodoxy? This is incorrect.

The article you linked to was well done, albeit from a distinctly Latin perspective.

I’m not sure what sort of source you have in mind to verify the legitimacy of our practice. I never made the claim that it is of ancient origin, just that it practiced by some Eastern Catholics. There are many liturgical and sacramental practices of the Latin Church that are well-accepted, but not of ancient origin. Delaying the reception of Holy Communion comes to mind. It is practiced by my bishop, in his Cathedral. That is enough for me.

 

[thistle]

For those who begin to be in danger of death by reason of illness or old age.

In any case, the case of the elderly has nothing to do with the point. Please actually read what I was replying to.

I did read it and I know it was not the point. However if something is not quite correct I have to say so. Happens to me often and I normally just say thank you.

 

[Arkansan]

I do not think that a priest who wrongly administers Anointing is intending any offense. He might (and I say might) be at fault for something else, but I would absolutely not call it a sacrilege.

Fair enough.

I’ll trust the canon law of the Eastern Churches on this matter.

It’s not that simple. Canon Law and Liturgical Law are equal to each other in the mind of the Church. The Church seeks harmony among the various forms of law.

The way that you personally read the Eastern Code might not be the same way the Eastern bishops read it. There is also the element that the Eastern Law is not always authentically Eastern. A good example of this is that it took from 1990 to about 2 years ago for the Eastern Code to finally be revised to accurately reflect Eastern theology that the priest (not the couple) is the minister of Marriage. Oddly enough, this comment was made in the “Instruction” that accompanied the Code, but poorly written in the Code itself. The vast majority of the Eastern Code is (in reality, like it or not) a cut-and-paste from the 1983 Latin Code, with some changes with regard to the Patriarchs and Synods, and with much of the liturgical canons of the West omitted.

I’m not sure how “gravely ill” can be interpreted to mean “everyone present on Holy Wednesday”. Moreover, Eastern canon law not being “authentically Eastern” doesn’t matter. There are all sorts of cases, both civil and canonical, where one legal tradition borrows elements of another for whatever reason. Whether or not such an action is advisable in a given case doesn’t affect the obligation to obey the law.

That would be the case even if we were dealing with a matter of positive law alone, but it’s all the more true given that the Church’s teaching on the Sacraments is at stake.

My point here is not to say ONLY “I trust the Eastern Code” but to trust all of the Laws of the Eastern Churches, and that includes their liturgical laws.

Where does their liturgical law allow it? All I’ve seen is people saying that it’s practiced at their parish. That’s meaningless since many Latins can say the same thing. I’ve not been able to find anything permitting it.

The Anointing during Holy Week in the Eastern Churches simply does not “fit” into the Western understanding of Anointing. It’s part of the legitimate Eastern patrimony and their liturgical heritage.

The law of non-contradiction applies to all. So either serious illness is required for Anointing to be valid, or it isn’t. That isn’t something that can relative to liturgical rite.

Also, as mentioned above, this is a post-schism practice that arose among the Orthodox. It’s no more a legitimate part of their heritage than penitential adultery is.

 

[babochka]

I’m not sure how “gravely ill” can be interpreted to mean “everyone present on Holy Wednesday”. Moreover, Eastern canon law not being “authentically Eastern” doesn’t matter.

You seem to have little respect for Eastern practice or theology. but for the sake of others who are reading, I will respond to this.

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 law does not stand on its own. It is always to be understood in relation to the received tradition. And yes, it does matter that the CCEO is not authentically Eastern because it creates inherent conflicts between the CCEO and the received tradition, which the CCEO explicitly states is to be the guiding principle in the interpretation of the law.

That would be the case even if we were dealing with a matter of positive law alone, but it’s all the more true given that the Church’s teaching on the Sacraments is at stake.

Perhaps you could expand your understanding of “the Church’s teaching” on the sacraments to include the various perspectives held in the East, as we are also the Church. Would it surprise you to know, for example, that children who have not yet reached the age of reason are legitimately anointed in the East? Such an anointing would not be valid in the West, but it is in the East.

The law of non-contradiction applies to all. So either serious illness is required for Anointing to be valid, or it isn’t. That isn’t something that can relative to liturgical rite.

In the Eastern perspective, we are all seriously ill and our illness will end in death. This is one explanation, from the Greek Orthodox Church:

The Sacrament may be celebrated at any time for the sick. It is celebrated with special solemnity on Great Wednesday for the entire community for the healing of the spiritual and bodily infirmities of the faithful. Through the prayer of its priest, the congregation asks God for forgiveness, help and deliverance from the cycle of sin and suffering. The borders between the -sickness of the body and the sickness of the soul are not always strictly defined. Because we cannot draw a sharp distinction between bodily and spiritual illness, the Church confers Holy Unction upon all the faithful whether they are physically ill or not.

Also, as mentioned above, this is a post-schism practice that arose among the Orthodox. It’s no more a legitimate part of their heritage than penitential adultery is.

This is a poor example, as the divergence in the approach to divorce pre-dates the schism. The differing practices of the East and West coexisted for centuries.

Regardless, Eastern Catholics are not required to repudiate all theological and sacramental developments of the Eastern Churches that occurred after the schism. We even liturgically commemorate soem post-schism saints and private veneration of post-schism saints is quite common.

 

[babochka]

Where does their liturgical law allow it? All I’ve seen is people saying that it’s practiced at their parish. That’s meaningless since many Latins can say the same thing. I’ve not been able to find anything permitting it.

Our liturgical law is not as straightforward nor is our tradition as unified as that of the Latin Church. We don’t have an equivalent to the GIRM.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You seem to have little respect for Eastern practice or theology. but for the sake of others who are reading, I will respond to this.

Your response was exceedingly kind.

 

[Arkansan]

Perhaps you could expand your understanding of “the Church’s teaching” on the sacraments to include the various perspectives held in the East, as we are also the Church.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma says that it is De fide that only the faithful who are seriously ill can receive Anointing. The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that the Orthodox practice is an abuse of the Sacrament.

Do you have any source, at all, for your view?

Such an anointing would not be valid in the West, but it is in the East.

The law of non-contradiction applies to everyone. Do you have any source for the claim that the Church possesses the power to affect the validity of Anointing? Not the blessing of the oils, but the Sacrament itself.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I never hear much about this sacrament. Is it standard for people with mental illness or chronic conditions to seek it?

Your first sentence reminds me of words from Pope Benedict years ago…

This sacrament deserves greater consideration today both in theological reflection and in pastoral ministry among the sick. Through a proper appreciation of the content of the liturgical prayers that are adapted to the various human situations connected with illness, and not only when a person is at the end of his or her life (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1514), the Anointing of the Sick should not be held to be almost “a minor sacrament” when compared to the others. Attention to and pastoral care for sick people, while, on the one hand, a sign of God’s tenderness towards those who are suffering, on the other brings spiritual advantage to priests and the whole Christian community as well, in the awareness that what is done to the least, is done to Jesus himself (cf. Mt 25:40).

As to the second sentence, the sacrament is steadily being used more with regard to psychiatric disorders and disorders treated by clinical psychology when the pathology provides a path that indicates the sacrament could be of benefit.

This is the fruit, I would add, of that theological reflection which the Pope referred to and which he has helped facilitate…himself having been for decades a singular personage in the theological community, going back to the days of course of Cardinal Frings.

Chronic conditions, similarly, would be assessed as to both their origin and the impact on the person’s life, with the assessment considering all the aspects of the person’s condition.

 

[babochka]

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma says that it is De fide that only the faithful who are seriously ill can receive Anointing. The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that the Orthodox practice is an abuse of the Sacrament.

Do you have any source, at all, for your view?

I think the fundamental difference between us is in the understanding of “seriously ill” . You seem to limit seriously ill to mean “in danger of death in some way”.Others have a broader understanding of this requirement. The way I understand it, “in danger of death” most definitely qualifies as “seriously ill”. Other conditions may also qualify. As I mentioned in the other thread, I recently received the sacrament for a serious condition that is most definitely not life-threatening. It does significantly affect my ability to function normally and I risk permanent nerve damage if the condition continues. How is this ailment not serious, according to your understanding? Do I not have need of physical and spiritual healing?

Regarding the Eastern practice of anointing everyone on Wednesday of Holy Week, I (and others) have already explained the perspective of East. This is not universally practiced in Orthodoxy, nor in Eastern Catholicism. I don’t know of a source that you would accept. The primary source that we follow is the teaching and directives of our Bishop. We look to him as the guardian of orthodoxy and of the sacraments. My bishop follows this practice in his Cathedral. He takes the administration of the Holy Mysteries seriously. I could give you some Orthodox sources, but I think that it is unlikely that you would find them acceptable.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is an impressive work and full of excellent and well-researched articles, but it is not an unbiased source of information about the East. It always approaches the East using the western practice as standard. This is not the way the Church sees Eastern tradition.

The law of non-contradiction applies to everyone. Do you have any source for the claim that the Church possesses the power to affect the validity of Anointing? Not the blessing of the oils, but the Sacrament itself.

I’m not sure I understand this question. Frankly, there are plenty of perplexing contradictions in the Eastern vs. Western way of looking at the faith. They are usually complementary, but not always. Since you are the one who is concerned about this and you seem to look first to canon law, can you explain how, in the West, one who has not yet attained the use of reason is not a fitting recipient of the sacrament, yet in the East he is? This difference is reflected in canon law. How can these coexist? My pastor can validly and licitly anoint an infant and yours cannot.

 

[Spyridon]

I’m not sure how “gravely ill” can be interpreted to mean “everyone present on Holy Wednesday”

Probably due to the hamartiology of the East.

Sin itself is considered a terminal illness, and all humans are diseased with it.

 

[DeniseNY]

Wonderful response. Thank you, babochka.

 

[Arkansan]

I don’t know of a source that you would accept.

Anything from the Church (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, etc.) stating that Anointing of the Sick may be given indiscriminately to all.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

CCC

1514 The Anointing of the Sick "is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone 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.

In essence, all are in sickness and in danger of death at any moment, but generally the priest will first asks for those who have an illness to come forward.

Also, there is more to administering the Sacrament than merely anointing with oil and praying over the person.

Having been to my mother-in-law’s reception of the sacrament, as well as my own, if possible, confession and reception of the Holy Eucharist is included.

Jim

 

[twf]

Eastern theology would argue that we are all seriously ill due to sin.
It’s a very different interpretation of serious illness, but it doesn’t actually contradict the De Fide teaching.

 

[twf]

This is the official website of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix- it testifies that the Mystery of Anointing is conferred to all present on Holy Wednesday: Eparchy of Phoenix

 

[Arkansan]

There are, unfortunately, a number of places where similar practices can be found in the Latin Church. Do you have a source for the Church approving this practice?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and the Council of Trent are all better sources than some random diocesan website.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The residing Bishop is the authority on this.

Jim

 

[babochka]

There are, unfortunately, a number of places where similar practices can be found in the Latin Church. Do you have a source for the Church approving this practice?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and the Council of Trent are all better sources than some random diocesan website.

You believe that the Catholic Encyclopedia and Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma have greater authority than a successor to the Apostles in his own Eparchy? I’m afraid that nothing will satisfy you.