|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Anointing of Those Who Want It?
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
In principle it is my duty in charity to intervene if I believe that people make foundational error in faith.
Is it? That sounds a very Protestant way of looking at things. Isn't that their priest's job?
It seems to me inconsistent with
quote:
From same post
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it? That sounds a very Protestant way of looking at things. Isn't that their priest's job?
Sure, that is the job of the priest (or the bishop, really). I'm however also my brother's keeper. That I am not a medical doctor does not mean that I should never provide first aid to anyone, in particular if I had some first aid training. It does mean though that I should probably not attempt open heart surgery...
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It seems to me inconsistent with
quote:
From same post
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.
How is that inconsistent? If there is an actual "objective" standard of faith, then obviously I can know whether I'm more or less wrong about something than somebody else. Of course, I could be wrong in my assessment. But then the person I'm wrongly trying to correct could point that out to me using the very same standard. If there is no such standard, then correction becomes nothing more than forcing one's opinion onto others.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
How is that inconsistent? If there is an actual "objective" standard of faith, then obviously I can know whether I'm more or less wrong about something than somebody else. Of course, I could be wrong in my assessment. But then the person I'm wrongly trying to correct could point that out to me using the very same standard. If there is no such standard, then correction becomes nothing more than forcing one's opinion onto others.
Be that as it may, even in a church that does not have as high a view of priestly authority as I've always understood yours to have, I'd have reservations as to what the average priest's reaction would be to a know-all lay person coming up after the service and saying,
"You don't want to do it like that. You want to do it like this."
If there is an objective standard of faith, don't you think it's even possible that the priest, who has been trained in these things and has authority conferred upon him, might have at least as much understanding of that standard - or possibly even more? I am sure nobody could say that he is perpetrating a serious heresy, rather than merely following a practice you do not prefer. Particularly in an ecclesial community that emphasises priestly authority, might it not be better, or even ones obligation, to defer to him. You could defend this stepping back to yourself, either on the basis of simple tact, or as recognition that he is the one to whom the Holy Father has devolved authority.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is it possible to be anointed in proxy?
It is quite common and encouraged in anglo-catholic circles.
Interesting. I have absolutely no idea where the RCC stands on this, and no real idea how I would find out. Frankly, the idea never occurred to me that one could do this. Can I partake in the Eucharist on someone else's behalf as well then?
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd have reservations as to what the average priest's reaction would be to a know-all lay person coming up after the service and saying,
"You don't want to do it like that. You want to do it like this."
I guess it doesn't show too much here, but I am actually fairly experienced in the art of hierarchical diplomacy. Universities can be very unforgiving places if you mess with the boss or can't handle a committee. So if I decide to follow this up (and I doubt it - part of my experience is to carefully pick my battles), then it will be a lot smoother than that...
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If there is an objective standard of faith, don't you think it's even possible that the priest, who has been trained in these things and has authority conferred upon him, might have at least as much understanding of that standard - or possibly even more?
I think it is not only possible, but highly likely, that the priest is much better informed about liturgical standards than I am. However, it is also possible, and unfortunately not utterly unlikely, that some RC priest disagrees with the official liturgical standard and is somewhat less than careful in keeping it. These things, shall we say, have been heard of in RC circles.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I am sure nobody could say that he is perpetrating a serious heresy, rather than merely following a practice you do not prefer.
I haven't said anything about "serious heresy". However, I do not believe that this is merely a matter of preference. In order to discuss that, I have started a thread here. Do you have a problem with that?
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Particularly in an ecclesial community that emphasises priestly authority, might it not be better, or even ones obligation, to defer to him. You could defend this stepping back to yourself, either on the basis of simple tact, or as recognition that he is the one to whom the Holy Father has devolved authority.
Firstly, teaching and governing authority over the Church rests with the bishops in the RCC, not with the priests. The priest may be my "line manager", but he is not my "policy maker". Secondly, I have deferred to the priest's authority so far. Thirdly, I would defer to his authority further even if I was to make a fuzz by primarily seeking to clarify the issue with him (rather than by snitching on him with the bishop or Rome).
Fourthly, this is about a sacrament. Nobody, but nobody, gets to mess with the sacraments. No lay person, no priest, no bishop, and not even the pope in Rome. Perhaps an analogy you would understand is to "freedom of speech". People get rather tetchy if they think their "freedom of speech" may be under attack. Sure, lawful authority can pass some new regulations on this. But whatever is done or said, it will come under unusually critical scrutiny whether the letters of the law respect the spirit of "freedom of speech". And if it looks like there is something really nasty going on, then this is an issue where people will take to the streets - or the weapon's depot, if need be. That's how many Catholics feel about sacraments.
--------------------
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 IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is it possible to be anointed in proxy?
It is quite common and encouraged in anglo-catholic circles.
Interesting. I have absolutely no idea where the RCC stands on this, and no real idea how I would find out. Frankly, the idea never occurred to me that one could do this. Can I partake in the Eucharist on someone else's behalf as well then?
They're different, despite both being sacraments.
There is probably some fallout from some evangelical healing services where someone asks what the illness is and then, maybe, tells everyone else. People with sexual abuse issues, for example, may want a degree of privacy so ask someone else to go up on their behalf. It is a form if prayer for another, something vicarious.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
You can receive the Eucharist on someone else's behalf, or rather I should say, you can attend Mass and have them as your intention, just like you can claim an indulgence for yourself, or for someone else. Anointing? I don't think so. You certainly can't get married, ordained, confirmed, baptized or confessed on someone else's behalf.
The catechism (1514-15) gives two instances: when one is in danger of death from illness; or when one is about to undergo surgery. This does limit the recipients, but rather broadly. There would seem to be two conditions:
1) There is some kind of sickness or illness. I don't see any reason to exclude mental health issues from this.
and
2) It is the sort of thing that could lead to death, even if that's still unlikely. A maximum level for the minimum threshold for death likelihood would be the probability of death resulting from surgery, which is apparently 0.01%.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I'm also a little disappointed with the judgmentalism I see here regarding who goes up for anointing during a healing service.
The more involved I am in our congregation, and the more I know where the bodies are buried, so to speak...the more I understand the very serious physical and emotional burdens that people carry with them every day -- people who in no way look sick. We have adult victims of child abuse who recently confronted their abuser and have been ostracized by members of the community...we have people struggling with severe prescription drug addictions...we have clinically depressed, even suicidal people...we have people who've gotten bad news about cancer, their own or their loved ones'.
How dare any latter-day Pharisee watch any of these individuals go up for anointing and judge their worthiness to be there. Shame on you.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
Given your tradition and your argument from it, I think talking to your priest would be a lot more appropriate than noodling random folks on the internet, much less people in the pews. quote:
quote:
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.
WTF? Seriously, where did I say there shouldn't be any kind of rules? Do you have a quote? Have you confused me with one of the resident free spirits? Just because I disagree with your apparent criteria and have pointed out that external appearances can be quite deceiving doesn't mean I think "any kind of rules will necessarily get in the way". It means that I think you should know there's very likely many more people to whom the rules properly apply than meets your eye. We probably disagree on where the lines should be drawn as well, but again, that is not "NO RULES, BABY!" quote:
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.
Oh, indeed it occasionally does, but that is, as they say, another story. Don't confuse cause/means and effect, remember that "sometimes" or "often" does not mean "always", and also remember to embrace the power of "and"; applying zero-sum thinking to the workings of the Spirit is, IME, a grave error.
--------------------
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
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
a 2 second google brought me to the UK census from 2001 which shows that just shy of 30% of all UK people have a "limiting or long term" illness. so the amount of people who stood for anointing in your church makes perfect sense to me, Ingo.
I have an illness that may well kill me some day. not only can you not see it - I appear to be disgustingly fucking healthy. the reality is, you don't know. nor is it your business. Can't God work that bit out for Himself?
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I feel it is my duty in charity to point out that one might best worship God and benefit from the Mass if one is not worrying about how others are doing it wrong.
OK, I say that only half tongue-in-cheek. I mean, I would be very concerned if I saw something outside the pale happening with a Sacrament, but this doesn't sound like that.
The more research that's being done on Church history, liturgy, and Sacraments, the more variety we're finding throughout the Church's history. I'm not an expert in that, but I've sat at the feet of some pretty good teachers.
Of course, in the RCC and other churches it's a living tradition, and some rogue church or individual can't decide they're going to do what they read about Christians doing in the xxth century even if the Church currently doesn't allow for it. Since I'm not (Roman) Catholic, and I don't now the current rules there, I can't comment on whether or not it's clear how Anointing of the Sick should be practiced.
But let's say it is meant to be reserved for a "special state," and all this anointing people in church just because they come for it isn't really the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. Who are we to say it isn't still sacramental in some way? It seems clear to me that it is, given the grace many people experience from it. I would say that, though - I'm convinced I encountered the Real Presence of Christ in Communion services in the Assemblies of God, which holds Communion to be only a memorial and obedience to a commandment. It's like Amazing Grace says, the Spirit blows where it will. (Actually, Jesus said that first, and I don't think AG is misapplying it here.)
The question then would be, where do we draw a line? How do we want to reflect the distinction in practice? Do we want to say we're anointing people for healing, but it's not really a Sacrament? Particularly if we're using oils that have been consecrated to be the Oil of the Sick.
[FWIW, at Grace Cathedral in SF, we bless 2 oils at the annual Chrism Mass: Chrism, and Oil of the Sick. These are distributed to the churches in the diocese. Chrism is used for baptism, which we take to be full initiation into the Church; Oil of the Sick is for healing; and no oil is used at Confirmation or Ordination. Do any Episcopal churches (USA) use oil or Chrism for ordination?]
In my experience, when you go to be anointed on behalf of another, the person praying with you prays for you as well as that other, and focuses the anointing on you, as if anointing you to minister to and pray for the other.
Now, if you really want to blow a gasket on this one, I've been anointed thus on behalf of a cat before, and she didn't end up needing the surgery the vet was sure she needed! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) (Actually, the surgery was to be an attempt to avoid amputation, but the cat's leg just healed right up. Thanks be to God!)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
a 2 second google brought me to the UK census from 2001 which shows that just shy of 30% of all UK people have a "limiting or long term" illness. so the amount of people who stood for anointing in your church makes perfect sense to me, Ingo.
I have an illness that may well kill me some day. not only can you not see it - I appear to be disgustingly fucking healthy. the reality is, you don't know. nor is it your business. Can't God work that bit out for Himself?
A friend of mine (fellow alto in the choir) died at age 45, meanwhile to all appearances looking like the healthiest person you ever met. She was very fit - likely because of her chronic condition (a genetic flaw that caused tumors on her brain stem) - being really physically fit would give her a better fighting chance. If you'd seen her in a group going up for healing prayer, she'd probably be the first you'd pick as being too healthy to be there - unless you knew of her condition. She didn't even look her age, was really cheerful, bright, and active, and could take off running. But then one day she just fell into a coma. We had just sung Faure's Requiem together the day before. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
You're quite right, churchgeek, many people who do not look as if they are at death's door are on the verge of serious medical problems. It is not up to outsiders to judge those who go up to be anointed or have hands laid on them.
Having said that I think that individual anointing, sometimes in tandem with Confession (if desired), might be a more personal and effective way of doing it than those rather anonymous 'Healing Eucharist with Laying on of Hands' which tend to happen in some large metropolitan parishes. I believe that it helps, if possible, to have some genuine interpersonal contact with the priest, so he/she can tailor things to the individual's needs. We do, after all, believe in a personal God. The priest is there as His outreacher. He/she is usually delighted to do this.
I think anointing should be more part of the general Anglican priest's repertoire. Something quite natural as it is in Orthodox countries.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
How dare any latter-day Pharisee watch any of these individuals go up for anointing and judge their worthiness to be there. Shame on you.
Note that I'm not posting as a host here...
I find this post (and some others that get close) incredibly unhelpful. All but one poster (who seems to have given up posting on this thread) are posting out of a deep love for the action of God through the church in what many would term the sacrament of anointing (and a few would have slightly different language for). What people are questioning, is who are the people who should be receiving that. Dismissing any position you disagree with about that as Pharisaical is lazy at best. Trying to make out that anyone thinks it has anything to do with worth or impugning value judgments onto people does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation.
Here's a parallel that might help you see that worth is just the wrong category to be thinking in terms of here. I am baptized. As a baptized person, I cannot receive the sacrament of baptism. That's not because I'm not worthy. Someone saying that I can't receive baptism isn't being judgmental or a Pharisee. It's simply a fact that I'm not the kind of person who can receive the sacrament. The kind that can (the unbaptized) aren't better than me because they can receive it. In the same way: I'm lucky enough to be in good health, so I can't receive anointing. That's not a value judgment, or an expression of my lack of worth.
Now given my reading of the church documents, I think the number of people who went forward at that service is not particularly surprising and there is no cause to be alarmed. So, in some sense, I agree with you and not IngoB (although he more has a question than a position here). However, agreeing / disagreeing / being right is worth nothing compared with charity and I find your post so lacking in it (and so full of a judgmentalism that I find uncharacteristic of our past interactions) that I couldn't let it stand.
[ 15. July 2011, 07:16: Message edited by: Hart ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
a 2 second google brought me to the UK census from 2001 which shows that just shy of 30% of all UK people have a "limiting or long term" illness. so the amount of people who stood for anointing in your church makes perfect sense to me, Ingo.
30% is not 50%, and we have blessings for people that bring the Eucharist to the sick and elderly after every mass (including this one): those with debilitating sickness tend to not be at mass. Furthermore, I remain unconvinced that this sacrament is for minor sickness. For example, I have hay fever, being allergic to grass pollen. It is both a limiting and a long term illness, so I guess I'm part of your 30%, but I do not think that it is appropriate for me to get this sacrament. My suffering is pretty much limited to taking one tablet per day in summer.
Again, I believe that the Eucharist is what is supposed to strengthen us for the daily crosses we bear, not the Annointing of the Sick, and that includes all "minor" health issues. Perhaps we could discuss that, or indeed other issues like the difference between sacramental anointing and this sacrament, different ways in which "healing" is handled in different churches, etc. I find all these questions interesting and appropriate for Ecclesiantics, independently of how I arrived at them.
Whereas I find the question whether it is likely that all those who got up were secretly very sick has run its course. I remain unconvinced, and if you want to keep bitching about that, then I think you know the right place for it.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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?
Don't know to be honest. But I think it's a kind of 'centurion appealing to Jesus on behalf of his sick servant back home' scenario.
You know....
Aunt Mary lives in New Zealand and is very ill, I'm here sharing my own deep anxiety about her with God and the Church; the Church anoints me, in Mary's place, or maybe for my own sake as I'm so worried about her, and we pray for Mary and me.
Sounds okay to me, whatever's going on. Some element of the healing weirdness needs to be left up to the Holy Spirit, I suppose.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it? That sounds a very Protestant way of looking at things. Isn't that their priest's job?
Sure, that is the job of the priest (or the bishop, really). I'm however also my brother's keeper. That I am not a medical doctor does not mean that I should never provide first aid to anyone, in particular if I had some first aid training. It does mean though that I should probably not attempt open heart surgery...
[
Nor, come to that, diagnosis of the patient's condition?
'Providing first aid' might mean lending an emergency listening ear to someone threatening suicide.
But even many priests could baulk at 'diagnosing' whether the person's illness is reactive or chemical-based. Or even real, in the first place.
Similarly, when we were inducted into the administration of a parochial healing ministry, we - either as priests or lay ministers - were not encouraged to 'diagnose' - at the point of delivery - the authenticity of the applicant's request. The applicants in fact were free not to name either their problem or even their own name if they didn't want to.
As, I think, Sir Pellinore mentioned above there are times when it's more appropriate to go more deeply into these things, say a face-to-face appointment with the priest.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
It was I think Thurible of this parish who recounted the priest who would mutter 'Can't do 'em any harm, might do 'em some good...' whenever he Asperged the congregation?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... if you want to keep bitching about that ...
To clarify: generic "you" intended there, not "comet-you".
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
For example, I have hay fever, being allergic to grass pollen. It is both a limiting and a long term illness, so I guess I'm part of your 30%, but I do not think that it is appropriate for me to get this sacrament.
Yes, IngoB I accept that you are entitled to take that decision - for you. But I'd query whether you're entitled to take it for every other sufferer, whether from hay fever or something else, or for your priest who has perceived that there might be a pastoral need for anointing. I would suggest that is confirmed by the response it produced.
It looks as though this thread has revealed an interesting difference of approach between the Roman Catholic Church and the CofE and others. Their respective different understandings both as to which actions are specifically sacraments, and as to what the consequences are, do have practical implications for how churches provide for the sick and distressed. I think it is also clear that we on this side of the fence do not see anointing the sick as a form of the Last Rites but for those who are not dying yet.
quote:
Originally posted by ChurchGeek
[FWIW, at Grace Cathedral in SF, we bless 2 oils at the annual Chrism Mass: Chrism, and Oil of the Sick. These are distributed to the churches in the diocese. Chrism is used for baptism, which we take to be full initiation into the Church; Oil of the Sick is for healing; and no oil is used at Confirmation or Ordination. Do any Episcopal churches (USA) use oil or Chrism for ordination?]
Obviously I cannot speak for the US Episcopal Church, but the CofE has three, as described in this MW by Leo.
I can't provide a proper link as it's a pdf but the form of service provided in Common Worship has three. If you go to this web page it's under 'Passiontide' and on pages 288-9.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Hart: I stand by what I said. Baptism isn't a parallel example.
I'll also mention that DP has rheumatoid arthritis and PTSD, both of which illnesses can cause great anguish -- physical in one case, emotional in the other -- that's not always readily apparent to onlookers. (DP's RA often flares up in odd places like her jaw, her fingers and toes, even her ribcase...anywhere there's a joint, moveable or otherwise.) I deeply resent Ingo B et al making assumptions about my spouse's suitability for anointing. Maybe if we all pondered our own "suitability" for receiving any sort of divine grace at any time we might be less concerned with measuring other people's, or trying to create barriers to others' receiving grace through the ministry of the Church. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
LutheranChik, this is the Roman Catholic Church we are talking about. We have lots of rules about who who may receive which means of grace, and the anointing of the sick is not excluded from that. It would be helpful if people knew exactly what those norms are so that it does not boil down to making subjective judgements, which is what people are accusing IngoB of doing. The RC discipline is: quote:
Can. 1004 §1. The anointing of the sick can be administered to a member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger due to sickness or old age.
In other words, it's not for any and all illnesses. But please note that this is for the Sacrament - it does not refer to prayers, laying on of hands, sprinkling with water and the like.
IngoB, your instincts are entirely correct. In fact, this very situation is addressed by the Rite itself. The Pastoral Care of the Sick, Para. 108 specifies: quote:
If the Ordinary decides that many people are to be anointed in the same celebration, either he or his delegate should ensure that all disciplinary norms concerning anointing are observed, as well as the norms for pastoral preparation and liturgical celebration. In particular, the practice of indiscriminately anointing numbers of people on these occasions simply because they are ill or have reached an advanced age is to be avoided. Only those whose health is seriously impaired by sickness or old age are proper subjects for the sacrament. The Ordinary also designates the priests who will take part in the celebration of the sacrament.
I doubt whether the Ordinary was involved in any decisions! But Services of Healing have become popular, with all sorts of concommitant problems, indiscriminate anointing being just one, alas.
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
You certainly can't get married, ordained, confirmed, baptized or confessed on someone else's behalf.
Actually, you can be married by proxy, weird as that may sound. See Canon 1105
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But Services of Healing have become popular, with all sorts of concommitant problems, indiscriminate anointing being just one, alas.
With respect to the constraints and restrictions imposed on its members by the RCC, which I'm sure are intended for the best; I'm rather relieved we have a lighter hand with regard to anointing in the Anglican church.
The positivity and encouragement I've seen as a result of the small number of healing services - and the larger number of healing rituals within other services - leads me to conlude it's more a good thing than a bad thing. At least for parishioners.
Naturally, anointing with oil in conjunction with the use of Prayers for the Dying are something very separate and particular. And there's a fairly wide range of prayers for those seriously ill and those not, which again may dictate a more specific approach than the general healing service approach.
But while I can see why in the RCC context IngoB may be correct in his worrying about how right it is for some people in the OP to be responding to the healing ministry because it somehow devalues the sacrament; I can only be very glad it's not really an issue with the churches I've been involved with.
Perhaps we non-Catholics ought not to have contributed to this thread if it was only the RCC context that was being sought. As TT said, 'this is the RCC we're talking about.'
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina
Perhaps we non-Catholics ought not to have contributed to this thread if it was only the RCC context that was being sought. As TT said, 'this is the RCC we're talking about.'
Whether we should have realised this and held fire, I don't know, but I'm glad we haven't done. The thread has revealed two big differences between Roman Catholic practice and most others that I for one had not been aware of.
IngoB and Triple Tiara, this poses a different question. You'll have picked up from what the rest of us have said that our churches see physical and emotional healing as part of their mission and that they meet it very much in the way that IbgoB encountered.
The question is this. If it were obeying the rules correctly as you'd interpret them, how should a Catholic parish meet the pastoral needs of its members for healing and the type of support anointing gives? Would it tell them this is not a legitimate need and they should pull themselves together? Or would it do something else? Is there, for example, some way of using oil and/or laying on of hands which is not so specifically sacramental?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
One of the things I feel confident that a sensible Anglican cleric would do if he or she were involved in any sort of healing ministry whatever, is, if they felt someone was regularly coming up for what they thought were possibly spurious reasons, is to try and find out exactly what was the problem.
Many people who frequent churches are often lonely and suffer from a variety of worries. Much, although not all, illness, has a psychological element to it.
[ 16. July 2011, 07:15: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore (ret'd) ]
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
You start to approach the correct answer Pellinore. Any illness is very much an individual experience, with all manner of individual permutations. At its best, ministry to the sick is on a one-to-one basis - just as sin and confession would be.
However, it is also the case that the Church is a community of persons and so communal celebrations have an important place in the Church's life. Gathering with a whole group of people who recognise they need forgiveness is a powerful sign and also a comfort: I am not alone. So too with illness and healing.
So how to balance the personal and communal aspects. Here is where the Church sets norms because things can go badly wrong. Healing especially is open to abuse by conmen and demagogues who claim the power of healing, which can then mislead the innocent.
In 2000 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued this instruction on the matter. It is sane, balanced and realistic. But it also lays down that there are parameters, in order to protect the faithful from misuse and charlatanry.
There is nothing to prevent healing services, communal ministry of prayers for healing and so on. But there is also a recognition that we need to respect the integrity of the sacraments. The Sacrament of Anointing is not the only form of ministering to the sick. Rather than depriving those who genuinely need the sacrament, the discipline is to ensure that it ministered appropriately.
I am loathe to celebrate the sacrament in large gatherings precisely because it carries the danger of some people taking umbrage and feeling deprived and judged unworthy. When crowds go up for something, everyone wants to receive that something. I don't think the heavens will cave in or that our Lady weeps at the sight, but I do think prevention is better than cure.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Paragraph 1515 of the CCC explicitly states, "It is fitting to receive the Anointing of the Sick just prior to a serious operation."
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Leo I hope this is reassuring, but shouldn't the verb in your second sentence be "Would this have been legit ..." rather than "Is"? Aren't we bound by the rules and practices of our own ecclesial communities, we by ours and them by theirs?
It's become clear from this thread, that the RCC understanding and practice on anointing is different and governed by rules that are designed to regulate that understanding. I don't think they apply to us, any more than our rules and practice apply to them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Many people who frequent churches are often lonely and suffer from a variety of worries.
And that's just the clergy! Boom-ta-tish!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
I didn't even realise that non-Anglican Protestants had a sacramental understanding of the anointing of the sick, or that it was a sacrament in the same way that baptism is for example.
I always thought that most viewed it in the same way, as say, a healing service/praying over someone is among Catholics, i.e. a sacramental as opposed to a sacrament.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think we are coming from slightly different directions, TT, although we may not be 1,000,000 miles apart.
The Roman Catholic Church, inheriting the legalistic framework of Rome, does tend to take a very legalistic approach to matters. I can understand why.
The Sacrament of Holy Anointing, which used to be called Extreme Unction by Rome, is something which the Orthodox and Anglicans have tended to be a little more flexible about, administering it not just when someone was presumed to be at death's door, but for other, nonetheless serious, illnesses.
I see this as being primarily administered on a one-to-one basis in consultation with a cleric. Preferably after a Eucharist, and, if required, Confession. Remember I speak from an Anglican point of view here where auricular Confession is not mandatory.
The Healing Eucharist with Laying on of Hands, much a standard at some of the flagship Anglo-Catholic churches, such as Christ Church, St Laurence, Sydney, is something I can take, as long as the emphasis is on the Eucharist, 'the Medicine of Immortality', as the Orthodox call it.
Laying on of hands en masse and similar is something I do have reservations about for a number of reasons. I have been to such services at CCSL and elsewhere and find them somewhat conveyor belt in style. There are obviously people in grave personal need, of various sorts, who would do well to see a decent cleric individually, rather than try the 'one size fits all' approach in which they are participating.
Having said that, I am powerless to prevent these services, nor would I attempt to do so, as it often gives some of what your Church would term 'the simple faithful' some sort of watered down palliative care, which might lead them to take Christianity seriously.
Believe me, there are some extremely simple and desperate souls coming to Anglican churches for 'help', unsure sometimes as to what sort of 'help' they need. These include a large number of psychiatric cases, who need to be told quite firmly to keep up their medication and psychiatrists' visits.
I think it might help some of these people to realise the priest is a real person, with all a real person's needs, Anselmina. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Might make them a lot less demanding of same.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Leo I hope this is reassuring, but shouldn't the verb in your second sentence be "Would this have been legit ..." rather than "Is"? Aren't we bound by the rules and practices of our own ecclesial communities, we by ours and them by theirs?
It's become clear from this thread, that the RCC understanding and practice on anointing is different and governed by rules that are designed to regulate that understanding. I don't think they apply to us, any more than our rules and practice apply to them.
Well, I tend to trust the RC rules rather than the flakey C of E's
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I'm very happy to be flaky. Perhaps that should become my motto....
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Since evangelicals are in synod, who do not have the same view about sacraments as anglo-catholics, I prefer to check out views about 'right and wrong' from RCs.
Related to this thread is the issue of WHO can anoint. As I regard it as a sacrament, it should be a priest. However, TEC allows deacons and also some lay people to do it (and I know of a lay person who anointed someone at the point of death because there was not a priest to be found in the hospital.)
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Since evangelicals are in synod, who do not have the same view about sacraments as anglo-catholics, I prefer to check out views about 'right and wrong' from RCs.
How can you possibly remain in the CofE if you think that?
Never mind extending the doctrine of taint from women to evangelicals!
How would you cope with an ordained evangelical woman?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Since evangelicals are in synod, who do not have the same view about sacraments as anglo-catholics, I prefer to check out views about 'right and wrong' from RCs.
How can you possibly remain in the CofE if you think that?
Never mind extending the doctrine of taint from women to evangelicals!
How would you cope with an ordained evangelical woman?
We have two evangelical women priests in our team, both of whom regularly preside at our altars. No problem.
As for remaining in the C of E, I have regularly posted on The Ship, most recently in the ordinariate thread and it is tangential to do so again on this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
I'm very happy to be flaky. Perhaps that should become my motto....
Your 'flakiness' FOTS, if you look around you, would be relative.
IMO a little flakiness in certain matters does much to preserve one's overall sanity.
I would regard you as well within the bounds of sanity.
Not that I'm a wonderful exemplar.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
leo and ken - no more of the personal tangent, and the sniping at 'evangelicals in Synod' we can also do without. Thank you.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...
Related to this thread is the issue of WHO can anoint. As I regard it as a sacrament, it should be a priest. However, TEC allows deacons and also some lay people to do it (and I know of a lay person who anointed someone at the point of death because there was not a priest to be found in the hospital.)
This is where, with the Sacrament of Holy Anointing, you would appear to need clear guidelines. I should imagine there are. Perhaps religious professionals on the thread could inform us?
Regarding your true deathbed scenario I would wonder how valid it would be regarded as a sacrament. This is, once again, where clear guidelines come in.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Not all sacraments are reserved to priests, but anointing of the sick is. See CCC 1516 and James 5:14:
quote:
If anyone among you is sick, let them call the presbyters of the church and let them [the presbyters] pray over them [the sick one], having anointed with oil in the name of the Lord.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Regarding your true deathbed scenario I would wonder how valid it would be regarded as a sacrament. This is, once again, where clear guidelines come in.
The oil was validly consecrated so it could be seen as something akin to receiving Communion from the reserved sacrament.
With the increasing use of lay chaplains and with the clergy shortage, this needs revisiting.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
That's where the next couple of verses of James come in -- fervent prayer, a ministry of all. Anointing is to be done by presbyters, fervent prayer by all. If there aren't presbyters around to do the anointing, you don't have other people do that, you just need to properly value the ministry that all have been entrusted with.
As a side note, the oil does not have to have been consecrated for the sacrament to be valid.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Does anybody have any evidence of historically how widespread anointing the sick was within Anglicanism?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
My sense was that in the Episcopal Church pre 1970s it was somewhat unusual outside the high church wing, even though unction was provided for in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. My sense is that it gradually became more popular as a result of the modern "anything goes" mentality, leading towards the anointing of anyone who wants it, including dogs, cats, and hamsters.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
My sense was that in the Episcopal Church pre 1970s it was somewhat unusual outside the high church wing, even though unction was provided for in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. My sense is that it gradually became more popular as a result of the modern "anything goes" mentality, leading towards the anointing of anyone who wants it, including dogs, cats, and hamsters.
In my experience "your sense" is quite wrong as in every Episcopal parish I have known since my youth it was emphasised as a healing sacrament, though of course there are abuses everywhere.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
My sense was that in the Episcopal Church pre 1970s it was somewhat unusual outside the high church wing, even though unction was provided for in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. My sense is that it gradually became more popular as a result of the modern "anything goes" mentality, leading towards the anointing of anyone who wants it, including dogs, cats, and hamsters.
In my experience "your sense" is quite wrong as in every Episcopal parish I have known since my youth it was emphasised as a healing sacrament, though of course there are abuses everywhere.
You'll permit for asking but how long ago would that youth have been.
I'd really welcome some evidence of this both sides of the pond in (say) 1970, 1950 and 1930.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Regarding your true deathbed scenario I would wonder how valid it would be regarded as a sacrament. This is, once again, where clear guidelines come in.
The oil was validly consecrated so it could be seen as something akin to receiving Communion from the reserved sacrament.
With the increasing use of lay chaplains and with the clergy shortage, this needs revisiting.
I think you are in danger of going off on a tangent here, Leo. You seem to be mixing Anointing of the Sick (Anglican) up with Chrismation in the Orthodox Church (with oil consecrated by a bishop) whilst adding the 'reserved sacrament' bit.
'Clergy shortage', as the Roman Catholics have found in many areas, can and should never be seen as an excuse to water down the priestly office. They don't. I think what you are proposing is the thin end of the wedge. 'Lay presidency' could be further down that road.
I think you really need to think this one through Leo.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
