Thread: Purgatory: The Anointing of Those Who Want It? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001214
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
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 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
We do a mass with healing prayers monthly and virtually everyone (myself excepted as I don't agree with it) come up for it. I think they feel that we are all less than whole, in a world that is less than whole - so they come in solidarity with sick humanity.
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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).
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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).
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
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.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
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!)
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
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.
Posted by Aelred of Riveaux (# 12833) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.'
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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!)
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
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
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
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.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
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
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
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.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
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.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
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
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on
:
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.
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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).
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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?
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
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.
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on
:
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.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
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.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
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).
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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).
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
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
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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...
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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?
It is quite common and encouraged in anglo-catholic circles.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The Methodist guidelines for anointing include: 'There may be times when someone wishes to receive the laying on of hands on behalf of another person who cannot or will not come for themselves. Opinions differ as to the appropriateness and use of this practice of proxy healing.'
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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%.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
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.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
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.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
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?
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
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!)
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
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)
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
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.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... if you want to keep bitching about that ...
To clarify: generic "you" intended there, not "comet-you".
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
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)
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.'
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
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) ]
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I hope this isn't a daft question, but I was anointed before an operation in hospital. Is this legit,. given that I wasn't 'gravely ill'?
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
Paragraph 1515 of the CCC explicitly states, "It is fitting to receive the Anointing of the Sick just prior to a serious operation."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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!
Posted by angelicum (# 13515) on
:
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.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
I'm very happy to be flaky. Perhaps that should become my motto....
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
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.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
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
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
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.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
According to this TEC book In cases of necessity, a deacon or lay person may perform the anointing with oil blessed ... episcopal consecrations
[ 19. July 2011, 15:46: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
Does anybody have any evidence of historically how widespread anointing the sick was within Anglicanism?
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on
:
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.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
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.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
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.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
No - I was not talking about chrismation, I was talking about the sacrament of unction - the oil for which is consecrated by the bishop on Maundy Thursday every year.
I have rehearsed, before, my strong opposition to lay presidency.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
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. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I'm talking about the 1960's when my own parish had a weekly healing service after midday mass as did several neighboring parishes.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
Thanks. Was that with a sacramental anointing or just a laying-on of hands?
Any other bits of evidence? It interests me because I am aware of its controversial nature when practiced by Tractarians in the 1860s and wondered if and when it broke into the 'mainstream'.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Thanks. Was that with a sacramental anointing or just a laying-on of hands?
Any other bits of evidence? It interests me because I am aware of its controversial nature when practiced by Tractarians in the 1860s and wondered if and when it broke into the 'mainstream'.
LOH + anointing in our place at least.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - I was not talking about chrismation, I was talking about the sacrament of unction - the oil for which is consecrated by the bishop on Maundy Thursday every year.
I have rehearsed, before, my strong opposition to lay presidency.
Well, that's what I thought, you were mixing things up.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We had an Anointing of the Sick yesterday in Church, during mass. ...
Anyway, half the church got up to get anointed!
I'm a little concerned that only half the church responded to the invitation. Everyone I know (over pre-teen age anyway, but also many of them) has health failings. Oh, a lot of the health failings we label "normal" - eyesight that requires glasses or contacts for normal function, for example. Fact remains, it is less than the perfect health God originally intended for human beings.
Then there are all the invisible dis-eases. I have teen friends as well as adult friends with diabetes, high blood pressure, heart murmurs, allergies. Life distorting problems, life threatening problems - diabetes kills even if the people isn't going to drop dead this week shouldn't healing be sought? Couple months ago I had an ear infection that wouldn't go away, 20 years ago an ear infection permanently damaged my hearing, is an ear infection too small to seek prayer for? You bet I asked to be on the prayer list, even tho I was chided that the list is for serious issues, potential deafness isn't serious?
Alas, too many think "my problem is too small to bother God about," and alas too many people think their condition is "normal" and "they just have to live with it" instead of seeking healing, and alas some even think "my problem is too big for God to do anything about." Then there's the folks who think "God does help others, but God won't help me."
Based on my experience in meetings about praying for healing, a lot of the half who did not come for the sacrament were suffering diseases, a few of them deadly diseases about which they felt hopeless, and still they won't respond to an offer of prayer for healing.
Yes we need to do some teaching, but not "when you hear an offer from God, stay away"; we need more teaching that "God loves YOU! That means you personally, not just God sort of has to love you because you are a human being but God really prefers someone else. God LOVES *YOU*." Startling how many people just don't quite believe that.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0