What is annointing with oil?

[nate_trigeek]

I have always understood that the annointing with oil mentioned in James 5:14-15 was part of the process by which a sick person would approach the elders or priest and be prayed for as well as “annointed” in order to ask for God’s healing. Recently I heard a protestant speaker state the the word “annoint” used in this passage refers to the medicinal use of oil (as was done and believed by physicians in that day) and not the religious use of “annoint” as would be done by a priest. Basically he was making the point that James was saying to “use whatever medicines are available to you” and to also receive prayer. That it is not instructing a religious “annointing” of oil as is done by churches in a ceremony. What does the CC believe on this point? Thanks!

 

[epostle]

The use of oil in Christian antiquity was not, as has been maintained, a medical prescription adopted by the Church. In Apostolic times St. James directed the priests or ancients of the community to pray for the sick man and to anoint him with oil in the name of Jesus (James 5:14). And shortly afterwards, probably in the second century, a gold leaf found at Beyrout, in Syria, contains an exorcism “pronounced in the dwelling of him whom I annointed.” This is, after the text of St. James, the earliest evidence of the use of oil accompained by a formula in the administration of a sacrament [see Theophilus of Antioch (d. 181), “Ad Autolyc.” I, xii, in P.G. VI, 1042].

newadvent.org/cathen/07421b.htm

Sins can be forgiven even if the person is too sick to confess their sins. The oil does not forgive sins, but acts as a visible outward sign of God’s grace together with the prayers of the priest. Protestants deny the sacramental principle in spite of the fact that the Bible is loaded with examples.

Evangelical Protestants of the “low church” or non-denominational variety especially, oftentimes exhibit an antipathy to matter as a conveyor of grace (or “blessing”). In other words, they tend to deny the sacramental principle. This hearkens back to the Docetic heresy, with traces of Nestorianism and Donatism. Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians frequently express the notion that matter is a step down, a “reduction” of Christ’s Atonement: Matter vs. Spirit. Catholics (and Orthodox and many Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that the truth is quite the contrary, both prima facie and when examined in scriptural and reasoned depth.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/sacramentalism.html

 

[Joe_5859]

I have always understood that the annointing with oil mentioned in James 5:14-15 was part of the process by which a sick person would approach the elders or priest and be prayed for as well as “annointed” in order to ask for God’s healing. Recently I heard a protestant speaker state the the word “annoint” used in this passage refers to the medicinal use of oil (as was done and believed by physicians in that day) and not the religious use of “annoint” as would be done by a priest. Basically he was making the point that James was saying to “use whatever medicines are available to you” and to also receive prayer. That it is not instructing a religious “annointing” of oil as is done by churches in a ceremony. What does the CC believe on this point? Thanks!

What was his justification for translating “annoint” in a medicinal rather than religious way? Is it just that he chooses to interpret it that way because the meaning seems ambiguous to him, or does he find contextual evidence in the text that would lead him to believ it is the case? It’s hard to respond to his argument without knowing why he thinks that this is what anoint means.

The Church looks at this passage as pertaining to the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. For more info, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1499-1532). Catholic Answers also has an article explaining Anointing of the Sick.