|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Anointing of Those Who Want It?
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
We had an Anointing of the Sick yesterday in Church, during mass. The priest explained in his sermon (correctly, AFAIK) that while it used to be only administered close to death (and hence was called "Extreme Unction"), it really is supposed to strengthen all the ill and frail, and could be received fairly regularly. There was some talk about every three months, how the bishops now encouraged the use, and my wife claims that the priest said that the ill and frail were to be "first in line", which presumably means others could join the queue. However, I don't recall having heard that bit.
Anyway, half the church got up to get anointed! Good that they had four priests up there (somewhat by chance, visitors), but even so it took quite some time. I would say the ill and frail were a distinct minority in this. Well, there were no seriously ill for the obvious reason that this was at mass and I'm "generously" counting all elderly people that lined up as ill and frail. Still, they were outnumbered by people of every other age group, most of which looked liked in perfectly good health to me.
I sat there thinking that this goes to show that half of the church needed catechizing and/or to pay better attention. However, then we came to an end of the mass anointing, and the four priests anointed each other as well. At a stretch, one of them could be considered "ill and frail", namely the main local priest who isn't a spring chicken. Though really, he looks and acts rather the opposite (more like countryside "good health and cheer"). Not only that, after mass the priest thanked everyone explicitly for the - unexpectedly large - participation, with no comment on how this was really for the ill and frail.
OK, so to me all this seems like endangering the very character of the sacrament. It's the pendulum swing to the other side, after the sacrament was perhaps handled too restrictively in the past. But maybe I'm just wrong there? And clearly people want this. Or at least something like this... Perhaps we need a lot more of blessing, and sprinkling with water, and anointing, and laying on of hands, etc. in general, so that people don't rush in on inappropriate "opportunities" like this one. Your thoughts?
[ 05. January 2015, 01:30: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
As a fairly traditional Anglo Catholic I have to agree with your instincts on this. I still hold to the understanding that anointing is a powerful ministry for those who have some substantial illness (by which I mean more than a cold), belongs within a setting including confession and Holy Communion, and is only rarely to be repeated in the context of the same episode of illness. I assumed that this understanding was the norm across Catholic Christendom.
After 34 years in ministry I remain in complete awe at the spiritual power of this sacrament: I have never seen a single occasion where it has not unlocked the situation in which it has been administered.
What you describe sounds, i.m.h.o, both catechetically confusing and spiritually trivialising, of this Means of Grace.
[ 11. July 2011, 08:24: Message edited by: Oferyas ]
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And clearly people want this.
I like your OP, IngoB, but no, I think people need this. I'm no big fan of the "anointing of those who want it", but whenever I've introduced anointing in church, I've had the same kind of response that you describe. I always quote the Epistle of James and concentrate on the effect of the sacramental act - that those who receive it will be "saved", "raised up" and "forgiven". And yet, as you describe, almost the whole congregation comes forward. Are they all sick? No, at least not all physically. So I can only assume that they wish to be saved, raised up and forgiven. I've found that the use of anointing like this is a great blessing for individuals and for congregations.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I agree that receiving anointing too often can dilute the impact. However, I think that thinking of healing in terms of specific physical diseases is possibly too restrictive. Perhaps I could demonstrate with a couple of instances...
Anointing used to be performed at the conclusion of the pentitential service at the young adults' pilgrimage at Walsingham, and it was made clear that even if one weren't sick - as God willing most people in the 18-30 age bracket are not - one could accept anointing as a spiritual act, or to receive prayer for another who was sick. As you observed, the clergy anointed each other afterwards. To me this seemed a healthy and welcome approach to a neglected Sacrament.
Confessions were made available afterwards, which again aids the context.
On the other hand, if the anointing is held strictly within the context of a Parish Mass - no emphasis on Confessions, no special 'healing' event, just the usual Sunday at 10 - then I'm much more ambivalent about it. For one thing it can tend to disrupt the emphasis on the Communion itself.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
But those being baptized are also anointed; it's not only used for healing. Also, wasn't anointing used (in the Old Testament, anyway) as a sort of "commissioning" act? I've seen (and experienced) it used in this way.
As well, I've seen anointing used in a sort of vicarious way; you are anointed as you pray for another, sick, person.
And of course, asperges (for example) is only a "sacramental," not a Sacrament. I don't see what's wrong with anointing with oil used in this way also.
(That said, this last thing should be made clear: that this is NOT the Sacrament itself; it's neither "Extreme Unction" nor "Anointing of the Sick," but a sacramental.
I agree with what's been said here; I find anointing - even if only of a sacramental kind - to be very powerful.)
[ 11. July 2011, 12:29: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
IngoB, I have had exactly the same experience and said to the priest afterwards that I would seriously have to think of changing my church as so many people were sick here that I was terrified of catching something fatal!
It is a bit like Ash Wednesday when thousands of people come and receive the ashes as anyone can be ashed.
I think there is a degree of superstition about it as well.
[ 11. July 2011, 13:54: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Whenever I've been at a liturgy during which the anointing was offered, very few people partook.
IngoB, do you have any side chapels or nearby rooms? Some churches offer anointing after Holy Communion, but in a nearby withdrawn space.
The distance would serve as a natural barrier, and also would provide a more private setting wherein the priest could actually speak a bit with the person, and steer him/her towards or away from the anointing (providing caring words, mini-catechesis, a short prayer, and an invitation for a follow-up visit instead).
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But those being baptized are also anointed; it's not only used for healing.
True, but I think that is a different oil. The oil of the sick is distinct from that used on baptismal candidates and ordinands is it not? ... and indeed from the chrism used to anoint a monarch at their Coronation (not there are many of these taking place these days).
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Is this the Anglo-catholic version of those people in evangelical mission churches who go up to the front for every altar call?
I can, however, see the point of the idea that we are all to some extent spiritually, if not physically, sick.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But those being baptized are also anointed; it's not only used for healing.
True, but I think that is a different oil. The oil of the sick is distinct from that used on baptismal candidates and ordinands is it not? ... and indeed from the chrism used to anoint a monarch at their Coronation (not there are many of these taking place these days).
Traditionally, I suppose. I always got the impression that chrism was an all-purpose oil in many quarters of TEC. Surely somebody here has attended a TEC Chrism Mass. I wonder if they consecrated three separate oils or not.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But those being baptized are also anointed; it's not only used for healing.
True, but I think that is a different oil. The oil of the sick is distinct from that used on baptismal candidates and ordinands is it not? ... and indeed from the chrism used to anoint a monarch at their Coronation (not there are many of these taking place these days).
You are right, at least according to what I just read about the RCC.
I'm not sure it's true with Anglicans, though - is it? Episcopalians? (We'll at least forgo chrism for the anointing of monarchs, anyway!)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
kingsfold
Shipmate
# 1726
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Martin L.:
I always got the impression that chrism was an all-purpose oil in many quarters of TEC. Surely somebody here has attended a TEC Chrism Mass. I wonder if they consecrated three separate oils or not.
Scottish Episcopal here... I'm pretty certain we've got three oils at our place.
Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Riveaux
Shipmate
# 12833
|
Posted
IngoB said:
quote:
Well, there were no seriously ill for the obvious reason that this was at mass and I'm "generously" counting all elderly people that lined up as ill and frail. Still, they were outnumbered by people of every other age group, most of which looked liked in perfectly good health to me.
I think it is a very common misconception that people who don't look ill/disabled/in poor health etc. are therefore healthy. Many conditions do not have obvious outward signs and therefore it is easy to mistake people who are actually ill or frail for being healthy. For example, I have a disability which does not make me look any different to my peers of the same age but does mean that I am considerably frailer than them, there are many things I need help with and I'm more prone to picking up illnesses than my peers. Another fairly obvious example would be people with mental health conditions.
As far as I understand, healing services are not just for those who require the healing of specific ailments but also for those who find that other areas of their life need healing and I'd say that that was the reason that the priests were anointing each other: in recognition that until we finally reach unity with God in heaven none of us are entirely whole.
My view on this would be to accept those who come, God knows what is going on for each person, we don't necessarily even if we're their best friend. It may be that anointing was what each of those people needed that week and where God was for them, but only God and them would know this.
Posts: 161 | From: Cambridge UK | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Riveaux:
As far as I understand, healing services are not just for those who require the healing of specific ailments but also for those who find that other areas of their life need healing and I'd say that that was the reason that the priests were anointing each other: in recognition that until we finally reach unity with God in heaven none of us are entirely whole. .
Indeed - as Cranmer said, 'There is no health in us.'
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But those being baptized are also anointed; it's not only used for healing.
True, but I think that is a different oil. The oil of the sick is distinct from that used on baptismal candidates and ordinands is it not? ... and indeed from the chrism used to anoint a monarch at their Coronation (not there are many of these taking place these days).
You are right, at least according to what I just read about the RCC.
I'm not sure it's true with Anglicans, though - is it? Episcopalians? (We'll at least forgo chrism for the anointing of monarchs, anyway!)
I'm not sure - no doubt it varies from place to place, but use of the traditional three is certainly not unknown.
This was what was distributed at the only Chrism Masses I've attended. They were in Norwich which I'd put somewhere in the middle of 'Candle Power' as far as diocese of the C. of E. go. We even sang a hymn with a different verse about each. (I recal this being translated from a hymn from the ancient Greek Church, probably by the Revd. Precentor!)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
I was one of the deacons of the oils at this years chrism mass at St Paul's (London). There are three oils used in the CofE.
- Chrism - Confirmations, ordinations, commissioning
- Catechumen - Baptism
- Infirmum - Healing and extreme unction
3F
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Sickness doesn't have to be physical. A physically healthy person could have a mental illness. I'd also be in favor of another person standing in for another person. On the other hand, the sacrament is for the sick. Sounds like many of the people were going up to receive the anointing for the sick for reasons better suited for attending Mass, making a confession, or just wanting a blessing.
The solution is better catechesis.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We had an Anointing of the Sick yesterday in Church, during mass. The priest explained in his sermon (correctly, AFAIK) that while it used to be only administered close to death (and hence was called "Extreme Unction"), it really is supposed to strengthen all the ill and frail, and could be received fairly regularly. There was some talk about every three months, how the bishops now encouraged the use, and my wife claims that the priest said that the ill and frail were to be "first in line", which presumably means others could join the queue. However, I don't recall having heard that bit.
Anyway, half the church got up to get anointed! Good that they had four priests up there (somewhat by chance, visitors), but even so it took quite some time. I would say the ill and frail were a distinct minority in this. Well, there were no seriously ill for the obvious reason that this was at mass and I'm "generously" counting all elderly people that lined up as ill and frail. Still, they were outnumbered by people of every other age group, most of which looked liked in perfectly good health to me.
Whoa, nellie, hold it RIGHT THERE.
There are plenty of people who are have some kind of serious health condition that don't present as such externally, to say nothing of ailments of mind or spirit. The point is that you can't tell by looking at them. Nor is it really your business.
Just off the top of my head, I've gone to the rail when:
* Relationship ended in date rape and turned my world upside down
* Was having PTSD episodes related to above
* A long term "issue of blood" (heh, I love that Gospel story now) with follow-on anemia and bad health effects
* Harassment by employer and subsequent job loss
* Job offer falling through at same time unemployment insurance ran out and expensive home repair was needed, making me wonder how I was going to survive
* Friend came this close >< to suicide
Even when I had my serious bout with anemia and was moving mighty slowly I'm sure I would have "looked ok" to you. But I wasn't OK. I wasn't ok the other times either. I have a therapist, I have a physician. But it helped me that _the Church was there_ in the form of the sacrament.
With that being said, I'm not surprised you raised your eyebrows at what you saw, but I guess that's one way to get the backlog over and done with. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) A regular and announced service (e.g. "Mass with Anointing First Fridays at <X> time") would be a good way to go forward with this.
My present parish and my previous one offer prayer/unction at the main service. The present church has a station in a quiet corner of the nave, the Cathedral offered it in the side chapels.
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
My predecessor always did the anointing of the sick on the first Sunday of the month after both Communion services. I am convinced that is not the right approach except as a last resort to demolish the notion that Unction is only Extreme.
I am switching the parish over to a monthly healing Mass on a Wednesday rather than a Sunday. I think the Low Mass context is better for those who are chronically sick and find the Sunday services too long.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I can, however, see the point of the idea that we are all to some extent spiritually, if not physically, sick.
With this blow you have hit the nail on the head.
What many here are expressing reservation about is actually normal practice among the Orthodox. The people, at least in my experience, are regularly instructed in the meaning and purpose of the sacrament, which is, very simply, for the healing of soul and body. There is nothing to say that what needs to be healed must be a chronic, physical ailment. As has been rightly pointed out, there are other forms of trouble, ranging from physical sickness that may not be apparent to the casual observer, through a range of psychological conditions, to bearing the pain of loss or other elements of the past.
This is customarily served in the parishes or in privately homes when there is a particular sick person who has requested it but, in addition to these occasions for specific people, there is the annual service of Holy Unction, served by the bishop in various parts of his diocese during Great Lent. This is to provide as many people as possible under his care with the opportunity for spiritual as well as physical healing during the great fast, as they focus perhaps more fervently on their spiritual health. Usually, confession must have been made recently in order to receive this sacrament, and Communion should be received shortly afterwards. I always try to get to the cathedral for the diocesan service, and nearly everybody present receives anointing.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
We had a healing Eucharist on Sunday evening and the vast majority of the congregation presented themselves for anointing. As others have said, we are all in some sense lacking wholeness and stand in constant need of God's grace. I think it's much to be encouraged.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
At our church we have a 'Healing and Wholeness' evening once a month. I've never been (it's the only chance the choir get to have an evening off), so can't comment on it, except to say that I'm sure nobody who goes up for anointing for healing would be turned away, gammy leg or no gammy leg. It would be very much left up to the individual to decide what, if anything, in their lives needed healing and made whole, and that they would be perfectly at liberty to keep the reason private.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Firstly, several people have remarked that I cannot possibly know whether the people who received the sacrament were frail and sick, even in a physical sense. This is of course true for everyone considered individually. However, I think this to be highly unlikely for the lot of them considered as a group. We are talking here about a fairly large church full with people of unusually young average age, thanks to a popular attached primary school, from many racial and cultural backgrounds, thanks to being in Birmingham. It would require extraordinary circumstances to bring together such a considerable and mixed crowd of people, who look and behave quite normally and have never before or after shown signs of particular distress, but still are actually quite sick.
Secondly, I believe that every sacrament has - and should have - its own unique character. We already have a sacrament that deals with spiritual "illness and death". It's called Penance / Confession. We also already have a sacrament that strengthens us in body, mind and spirit for the Christian life on a regular basis. It's called the Eucharist. (Yes, the Eucharist has of course other functions, too. But this is a key aspect of it.) For that matter, we have a sacrament to prepare us for the general struggles of life, Confirmation.
In my understanding, the Anointing of the Sick is in a group with the Sacraments of Marriage and Ordination, in that it provides special graces for a special state of life. It is because marriage is such a challenging state that we get special graces; likewise for ordination (though there is more going on there, of course). And the special graces of the Anointing of the Sick are meant for a special state, too: that of closeness to death or severe suffering, whether due to illness or simply because of growing old.
Of course one can argue about how close to death or how tortured one would have to be in order to need such special graces. To literally restrict this to the deathbed is going way too far. But I do not think that a cold or a backache generally qualify. I think this is about the effect of the bodily state on the spirit, and the sacrament is supposed to strengthen us when misery is so prolonged or intense or fear of death so present, that our faith in God could be under threat. It is about sending in grace reinforcements when a fierce battle may break out or already rages inside, it is not about bearing the regular crosses of life (for which we have the Eucharist) or curing our spiritual rot (for which we have Confession).
I'm all for more sacramentals to spice up faith life, if people want that (as they apparently do, sometimes in some ways). But I'm also for aiming the big guns at the big targets. Grace is free, it should not be cheapened.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But those being baptized are also anointed; it's not only used for healing.
True, but I think that is a different oil. The oil of the sick is distinct from that used on baptismal candidates and ordinands is it not? ... and indeed from the chrism used to anoint a monarch at their Coronation (not there are many of these taking place these days).
You are right, at least according to what I just read about the RCC.
I'm not sure it's true with Anglicans, though - is it? Episcopalians? (We'll at least forgo chrism for the anointing of monarchs, anyway!)
I'm not sure - no doubt it varies from place to place, but use of the traditional three is certainly not unknown.
This was what was distributed at the only Chrism Masses I've attended. They were in Norwich which I'd put somewhere in the middle of 'Candle Power' as far as diocese of the C. of E. go. We even sang a hymn with a different verse about each. (I recal this being translated from a hymn from the ancient Greek Church, probably by the Revd. Precentor!)
There's also one by Rosemary Corrigan Campbell here.
There's another one here. and 'Blest by the sun, the olive tree ' whose words are still copyright.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But those being baptized are also anointed; it's not only used for healing.
True, but I think that is a different oil. The oil of the sick is distinct from that used on baptismal candidates and ordinands is it not? ... and indeed from the chrism used to anoint a monarch at their Coronation (not there are many of these taking place these days).
Traditionally, I suppose. I always got the impression that chrism was an all-purpose oil in many quarters of TEC. Surely somebody here has attended a TEC Chrism Mass. I wonder if they consecrated three separate oils or not.
We were used to having all three in the aumbry, but the present ordinary refuses to consecrate anything but Chrism.
BTW, I agree with IngoB's opening post and suspect that to many it was an occasion of novelty for some.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
When it comes to the sacraments, some are ones that you receive once, some are ones you receive regularly.
Eucharist and Penance are definitely the latter.
Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage and Orders are the former.
There seems to be a lack of consensus about the position of Unction. When regarded as Extreme Unction it was/is probably in the once only group. Most people seem to have moved away from that, but it's still not seen as something that should be frequent by some (many?) people. One priest I know believed it should only be used once per illness which struck me as a bit of an odd rule.
We have a monthly 'wholeness and healing Eucharist' at which laying on of hands and, if desired, anointing is available. It is fairly common for the majority of the congregation to go forward (individually) at this point. I do get a bit uncomfortable if I think there's a feeling that 'you ought to go forward', but I don't think that is generally the case. Interestingly, at the end of May I damaged my hand coming of my bicycle and the hospital suspected that I had fractured my scaphoid (though X-rays were inconclusive) and my hand was splinted. I was given an appointment at the fracture clinic for 10 days later. The wholeness and healing service happened to occur the night before the fracture clinic, so I went up and received anointing on the thumb. The next day, they decided that it didn't hurt enough still for it actually to have been broken so I must just have sprained it badly. I do wonder what the situation would have been had I not received anointing.
It seems to me that the epistle of James doesn't set any conditions on how ill you should be.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
It seems to me that the epistle of James doesn't set any conditions on how ill you should be.
Whereas it seems to me that if you need to be saved from an illness (James 5:15), then it likely isn't about the sniffles.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
From a Presbyterian:
Anointing as part of a service with multiple participants is new to me. But two people have been offered it in our congregation in the past month. One a frail and very anxious young woman, who had longed for a child and was finally pregnant but full of fears that after all this something might go wrong, was offered by the minister anointing in the context of prayer among four or five close supporters. The other, an older woman facing a mastectomy, was grateful for a similar suggestion, to take place the day before her operation.
I can remember very few previous anointings in our context.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And clearly people want this.
I like your OP, IngoB, but no, I think people need this. I'm no big fan of the "anointing of those who want it", but whenever I've introduced anointing in church, I've had the same kind of response that you describe. I always quote the Epistle of James and concentrate on the effect of the sacramental act - that those who receive it will be "saved", "raised up" and "forgiven". And yet, as you describe, almost the whole congregation comes forward. Are they all sick? No, at least not all physically. So I can only assume that they wish to be saved, raised up and forgiven. I've found that the use of anointing like this is a great blessing for individuals and for congregations.
Mr T has done something similar in our current church as healing can be for physical, emoutional and spritual things. There is a world of need out there and if annoting with oil and being prayed for helps people met with God and start moving on, then ... Well, that can only be a good thing surely?
It's done in the context of a special healing service with songs, prayers from up the front are choosen to under-pin the theme. The service is done every quarter IIRC. That maintains it's special-ness as doing it more often could, as IngoB worries, cheapen it. People are encouraged to prepare for the service as well by praying etc before they come.
Of all the services that Mr T has done, that was the most powerful and the most appreciated.
Our old church had a bottle of multi-purpose oil. (We're Baptists!). I don't think our new church had anything so we improvised with some olive oil in a ramkin and prayed over it before the service started.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
To the OP:
So wait... ...someone offered a magic ceremony, and some people took them up on it, and you are worried that they didn't really need the magic ceremony, and that it might, somehow, be improper to use such awesome magical power in that way? Why? In case it runs out? In case the grand high wizard gets offended?
You wonder why people laugh and scoff at your religion? Well, this is why.
Come on, people, back to the real world.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
I'm not saying don't do it. Like homeopathy, it probably doesn't do much harm, and I'm sure the placebo effect and the sense of being cared for do a fair amount of good. I'm just saying don't get so wound up about how it is done, as if they stuff actually mattered.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Our old church had a bottle of multi-purpose oil.
Not "Three-in-One", surely?
(This is a well-known brand of household oil in Britain).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Our old church had a bottle of multi-purpose oil.
Not "Three-in-One", surely?
(This is a well-known brand of household oil in Britain).
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
One (CofE) church of my acquaintance took the decision to offer anointing and Prayer with Laying on of Hands every week at the main Sunday morning Communion service.
The reasoning was that the Church was supposedly a place that should be offering the healing of God as often as it reasonably could and apparently the PCC decided that if Godly healing were so important why not offer it every week?
There was quite a process of congregational education; recruiting lay people to administer the oil and LOOH alongside the clergy. And certainly lasted for the last ten years or so, and maybe still goes on, for all I know.
People would receive their communion and if they wished to receive a prayer for healing they would take off down another isle to the side chapel where they would be anointed and prayed over by two ministers.
Hard to average 'up-take' but for the three or four years I knew of this, it could range from a dozen to a couple of dozen per week, from a regular congo of about 110 or so. For those who wanted nothing to do with it, it was easy to ignore the side-chapel business, and there was no bumping into each other, or people going the wrong way.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm not saying don't do it. Like homeopathy, it probably doesn't do much harm, and I'm sure the placebo effect and the sense of being cared for do a fair amount of good. I'm just saying don't get so wound up about how it is done, as if they stuff actually mattered.
You really do seem to have an inability to appreciate that for some of us, things like this do matter. We're not just doing it to play-act, or to wind up any passing atheists.
Just because you have recently decided that you don't believe in the power of prayer - which is what the Rite described relates to. Fine, that's your business, and nobody should force you to think otherwise or abuse you for your decision. But would it kill you to at least attempt to respect the other point of view?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
Ansemilia posted quote:
One (CofE) church of my acquaintance took the decision to offer anointing and Prayer with Laying on of Hands every week at the main Sunday morning Communion service.
The reasoning was that the Church was supposedly a place that should be offering the healing of God as often as it reasonably could and apparently the PCC decided that if Godly healing were so important why not offer it every week?
There was quite a process of congregational education; recruiting lay people to administer the oil and LOOH alongside the clergy. And certainly lasted for the last ten years or so, and maybe still goes on, for all I know.
People would receive their communion and if they wished to receive a prayer for healing they would take off down another isle to the side chapel where they would be anointed and prayed over by two ministers.
Hard to average 'up-take' but for the three or four years I knew of this, it could range from a dozen to a couple of dozen per week, from a regular congo of about 110 or so. For those who wanted nothing to do with it, it was easy to ignore the side-chapel business, and there was no bumping into each other, or people going the wrong way.
Same at a former church I attended. They felt that they had a special healing ministry and had members who belonged to the Order of St. Luke.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this silly hocus-pocus can ever be "respected".
I'm sure that splashing about in "holy" oil makes some people feel a bit better. I'm sure it makes others feel useful, as if they are doing something. In its own way it is very lovely.
But it's not real, and no-one with any sense would really think it is real (outside of some very elaborate play-acting).
It is as if you were saying, "oh, I used this magic spell, and I'm worried about over-using it" - which is fine, if you are playing a game of witches and warlocks, but not fine if you want to be taken seriously as someone who claims to be in the real world.
So get over it. Don't get your holy knickers in a twist about these fantastical notions. If you think that the hocus-pocus works, and that this magical power really exists, then do it. Do it all the time. Do it as often as people are credulous or desperate enough to want it. Don't limit it. Keep your cauldron boiling and your wands at the ready. That's all.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this silly hocus-pocus can ever be "respected".
I'm glad you're not an anthropologist, or a diplomat.
We have a monthly healing Mass at our parish. The anointings are intended for our elderly and sick parishioners. Because the Mass is offered one a weekday morning, it is our senior citizens who are most likely to be in attendance.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this silly hocus-pocus can ever be "respected".
I'm sure that splashing about in "holy" oil makes some people feel a bit better. I'm sure it makes others feel useful, as if they are doing something. In its own way it is very lovely.
But it's not real, and no-one with any sense would really think it is real (outside of some very elaborate play-acting).
It is as if you were saying, "oh, I used this magic spell, and I'm worried about over-using it" - which is fine, if you are playing a game of witches and warlocks, but not fine if you want to be taken seriously as someone who claims to be in the real world.
So get over it. Don't get your holy knickers in a twist about these fantastical notions. If you think that the hocus-pocus works, and that this magical power really exists, then do it. Do it all the time. Do it as often as people are credulous or desperate enough to want it. Don't limit it. Keep your cauldron boiling and your wands at the ready. That's all.
You're the one out of reality, actually. There is plenty of real evidence around for the efficacy of prayer at least; I've left four links at this post.
Pretty obviously you're no expert on the matter - so it's a real question as to why you think anybody ought to look to you for information or advice on what works and what doesn't....
[ 13. July 2011, 16:53: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Our old church had a bottle of multi-purpose oil.
Not "Three-in-One", surely?
(This is a well-known brand of household oil in Britain).
The diocese of Southwark, about 20 years ago, used to offer 'multigrade' oil. That soon changed, and I think most C of E bishops bless the three oils in line with the suggestions in Common Worship (Times and Seasons).
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But it's not real, and no-one with any sense would really think it is real (outside of some very elaborate play-acting).
So now that we've established that you have sense and we don't, can you please stop de-railing this thread with your 'I don't like what you believe because it's shite' rant and respectfully allow the thread to run the course which the OPer hoped it would run?
I'm sure I saw something in Purgatory where someone was saying they believed in Jesus Christ or something equally silly. Wouldn't you rather play with the new toy, rather than continue trying to smash this one?
Cheers.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I don't think that we need to discuss further what lives under the bridge.
Returning on topic, I note that
quote:
James 5:14-16 (RSV-CE)
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
is quite interesting. From a modern Catholic perspective, it sounds a lot like it's mixing up two sacraments (Anointing of the Sick and Confession). It seems to me implicit in the text that there was a confession to the elders involved in the process, namely due to the connection established by "Therefore" and indeed "righteous man" (which in those less cynical times the elders probably would have claimed without raising too many eyebrows).
I think this combination showcases a more "integrated" view of bodily and spiritual failure. And I guess that was still more or less present in the older "Extreme Unction" setup, which AFAIK would normally involve a "last rites" sequence of first Confession, then Extreme Unction, and then Viaticum (Eucharist). However, confession of sins is an element that was also missing from the mass anointing that I witnessed. I guess it would be appropriate to at least have an emphasis on the penitential rite before doing something like this in mass, i.e., using the Confiteor (Form A) followed by some "special" Kyrie (e.g., some proper chant).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
IngoB, do you have any side chapels or nearby rooms? Some churches offer anointing after Holy Communion, but in a nearby withdrawn space.
The distance would serve as a natural barrier, and also would provide a more private setting wherein the priest could actually speak a bit with the person, and steer him/her towards or away from the anointing (providing caring words, mini-catechesis, a short prayer, and an invitation for a follow-up visit instead).
That's how we handle it. Sometimes few people avail themselves, sometimes there's a line even after Communion has finished.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
It seems to me that the epistle of James doesn't set any conditions on how ill you should be.
Whereas it seems to me that if you need to be saved from an illness (James 5:15), then it likely isn't about the sniffles.
But the Greek verb which 'saves' translates in many English versions also means 'heals'. Unfortunately I can't lay my hands on my Greek NT at this precise moment, but I remember checking the past in the Gospels and noting that some passages have 'your faith has healed you' and others 'your faith has saved you' and that the Greek verb is the same in both and I'm presume that it will be that verb in the James passage. I've just checked my Welsh Bible and the verb there is 'iachau' to heal (which is clearly related to 'iachawdwriaeth' one of the words for salvation') -- Salvation itself of course has 'salve' as its root which is about healing.
An illness which needs healing doesn't say anything about how bad it is.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I don't know (koine) Greek, maybe someone who does can help us out. For what it is worth though, here is the interlinear, it is "sōsei" = "will rescue" there. Clicking on the Strong's number 4982. sózó - to save, we do get healing as a possible figurative meaning, but with a clear "get out of danger" touch. Looking up all occurrences of precisely the form in James (there are many other forms in the bible), we get six occurrences. Somewhat against the trend, the concordance lists "heal" as its main meaning, but the five other places in the bible it finds are pretty unequivocal "save"s, I would say.
On balance, I still think this is more about "healing" as in ER than "healing" as in Bach flower remedies...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, several people have remarked that I cannot possibly know whether the people who received the sacrament were frail and sick, even in a physical sense. This is of course true for everyone considered individually. However, I think this to be highly unlikely for the lot of them considered as a group. We are talking here about a fairly large church full with people of unusually young average age, thanks to a popular attached primary school, from many racial and cultural backgrounds, thanks to being in Birmingham. It would require extraordinary circumstances to bring together such a considerable and mixed crowd of people, who look and behave quite normally and have never before or after shown signs of particular distress, but still are actually quite sick.
Now there you go again, judging by appearance's sake . Oy, some of the things I hear from young people, it breaks my heart. And what business is it of yours the private reasons people have for going up, again?
quote:
But I'm also for aiming the big guns at the big targets. Grace is free, it should not be cheapened.
God's grace is abundant. Even something done "for curiosity" or from a sense of ticket-punching can be an instrument of grace. The Spirit blows where It will. Part of what we (generic) need to do is make space/opportunity for the Spirit to work ... and not get in the way.
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
And what business is it of yours the private reasons people have for going up, again?
I do not belong to a tradition which believes that individual opinion is the proper measure of what is right and what is wrong in faith. And neither do the people who went up. I do belong to a tradition which believes that the sacraments are foundational to our lives in faith. And so do the people who went up. In principle it is my duty in charity to intervene if I believe that people make foundational error in faith.
In practice, I have not really bothered anybody about this so far. I have said "What the heck was that?" - on the internet, anonymously. And if I decide to bother someone about this, it will not be random people in the pews. It will be the priest up front.
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Part of what we (generic) need to do is make space/opportunity for the Spirit to work ... and not get in the way.
That's very true. It's just that you unfortunately seem to believe that any kind of rules will necessarily get in the way. Whereas I would say that some kind of rules are often absolutely necessary to keep the way clear. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is one of utter anarchy and chaos, it can and on occasion does inspire order. For RCs, the sacraments are the very charter and constitution of the life in faith. They are not some kind of individual preference, like a private devotion. Hence we discuss them much as one would discuss the common good in politics. And that's where I'm coming from here.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
To go back to my original post of the church who did anointing and Laying on of Hands every week during communion.
Those who occasionally shared their reasons generally said it was a kind of ongoing thing for them. They may not have had legs hanging off by a thread, or a terminal disease, but they still valued the prayer and physical action, as having some kind of sustaining use for situations of doubt, fear, spiritual conflict or mental distress etc. And of course some where there as 'proxy' to others who couldn't be there eg, far-flung distant friends.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And of course some where there as 'proxy' to others who couldn't be there eg, far-flung distant friends.
Is it possible to be anointed in proxy?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
