www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Mystery of Holy Anointing

FOLLOWING WAS POSTED UNDER A DIFFERENT TOPIC AND IS RE-POSTED HERE IN THE HOPE THAT IT WILL ELICIT SOME INSIGHTS FROM OTHRS:

One of the highlights of my observance of Great Week this year was joining in the celebration of the Presanctified Liturgy and Mystery of Holy Anointing with the UGC seminarians in the crypt of the Basilica of the National Shrine in Washington on Great and Holy Wednesday. Afterwards I decided to do a little more reading on the subject of Holy Anointing. I came away a bit confused.

Some authors stressed the generous healing power of the Mystery (noting that it is sometimes referred to as "unctio ad gloriam" - however that might be expressed in Greek or Slavonic). These authors did not point to any language in the ritual (whether administered by a single priest or the traditional seven)imposing any conditions (either precedent or subsequent) on the power of the Mystery to heal sin. I heard nothing in the celebration I attended that suggested such a condition or restriction on the effects of the Mystery. Nor could I find anything in the various versions of the ritual I found in books last week.

Other authors whom I found, however, seemed reluctant to view the Mystery as accomplishing absolution from sin, or at least from serious sin. It was unclear to me whether they were saying: (a) that the Mystery is incapable of absolving from serious sin, but may absolve from lesser sin; (b) that the Mystery does absolve from serious sin, but only when administered to an individual in danger of death who is incapable of receiving Absolution afeer oracular Confession; (c) that the Mystery does absolve from serious sin, but the individual is bound to confess the sin later.

There seemed to be an opinion among a few authors that suggested that, whatever might have been the historical roots of the celebration of the Mystery during the Great Fast, it had evolved (degenerated?) into a mere Sacramental and was no longer the Great Mystery of Holy Anointing.

A subtext in some of what I read seemed to be that, for Eastern Catholics, the effects of the Mystery are limited by the language of the Latin and Oriental Codes of Canon Law. However, the Code sections cited by those authors seemed to be ones dealing with the Mystery of Repentance/Sacrament of Reconciliation. I could find nothing in the sections dealing with Holy Anointing/Extreme Unction that spoke directly to the question.

I would welcome any further insights that others might have.

Sin is a sickness, and Holy Unction is given for healing of mind and body.

http://www.3saints.com/unction.html

The page from the Patriarchal parish web site confirms one of the strands of thought that I uncovered in my brief web search. It is consistent with the view expressed by Fr. Meyendorff in his Byzantine Theology (1974):"... the office of "holy unction" did not evolve - except in some areas of the Christian East after the sixteenth century - into "extreme unction", a sacrament reserved for the dying. In Byzantium ... the anointing symbolized divine pardon and liberation .... The Church ... asks for relief, forgiveness and eternal freedom. This is the meaning of holy unction."

Other Orthodox and Catholic sources, however, seem to take a narrower view of the meaning and effect of the Holy Mystery. Fr. Meyendorff's sketch of the history of sacramental theology points out that Orthodoxy has not been of one mind on the number of Sacraments/Mysteria. Perhaps this accounts for some of the divergence I have seen. In any case, this web site seems to provide a clear base line from which to assess other information.

I guess I'm not following what it is you're trying to get at or what the question/problem is.

Holy Unction is sacrament, it is for forgiveness and healing. Chrismation is another sacrament of anointing. We also have non sacramental anointing at some services as well.

There is no fixed list of sacraments, although we generally acknowledge a set number of them.

The question has to do with the differing views that seem to be expressed, both by Catholics and by Orthodox, regarding the sacramental nature and effects of Holy Anointing (not Chrismation). My reading on the subject indicates that there are some who regard it as a mere sacramental. There are others who see it as a Sacrament/Mystery but seem to say that only Confession/Reconciliation absolves from serious sin. (The view of these commentators seems to be influenced by the recent experience of the Western Church with the introduction of and subsequent limitation on the practice of General Absolution.) There are others who see it as a Sacrament/Mystery capable of absolving from serious sin, but seem to say this is possible only under special circumstances. And there are still others who seem to attach to it conditions of the sort that the Western Church attached (attaches?) to General Absolution.

I am trying to find out which, if any, of these various viewpoints (or possibly some other viewpoint altogether) reflects accurately the position of the Churches (Catholic and Orthodox).

Before I was baptized Orthodox I made a lifetime confession. I did not receive absolution, the baptism was my absolution since it cleanses all sin.

My understanding of Holy Unction is inline with what is printed on the 3 Saints site. The final prayer is for the remission of sins, and makes no distinction between different kinds of sin. Neither does absolution after confession.

The Russian Orthodox web pages I have found (Patriarchal and ROCOR) seem to say that Confession is required before Holy Anointing in order for sin to be absolved/removed. Do all Orthodox share this view?

I am still hoping that someone can clarify what appears to be a significant difference among sincere believers (both Catholic and Orthodox). Some posts seem to reflect an 'open-handed' and generous view of the purpose and effect of this Holy Mystery. Some writers, however, including authors of what appear to be quite authoritative pronouncements on official web sites, seem to adopt a more restrictive view. All seem to recognize that there have been changes and developments in their respective Churches' understanding of the Mystery. It is hard to understand how all these positions can be an accurate statement of our common Apostolic Faith. Are there any experts on liturgical theology out there who can help?

Tim,

The short answer is Holy Anointing is for the restoration of health and the forgiveness of sins.

"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters 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" (James 5:14-15).

The Catechism states:
1532 The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects:
- the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;
- the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;
- the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;
- the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul;
- the preparation for passing over to eternal life.

The rubrical progression in the order for the visitation of the sick in both the Roman and Byzantine Rites is Penance, Anointing, and Communion. Although it is perfectly acceptable to give Anointing to an unconscious person.

The sticking point with some, and this goes for General Absolution as well, is that once the Mystery is received and the danger has passed the person is supposed to confess any mortal sin as soon as possible. Of course this caveat, thought up by canonists and moralists, presents a conundrum. What happens if confession isn't made? Many theologians while not objecting to the idea of confessing mortal sins think the idea that sins forgiven by Anointing or General Absolution can be unforgiven afterwords is ridiculous and runs contrary to the Tradition of the Church. And I agree.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance has provided a very helpful statement of one of the several views I had already noted having found on this subject. He points out that "the rubrical progression in the order for the visitation of the sick in both the Roman and Byzantine Rites is Penance, Anointing, and Communion. Although it is perfectly acceptable to give Anointing to an unconscious person."

This does not seem to address, however, the quite different understanding of the Mystery that seems to be expressed in Fr. Schmemann's book and in the Orthodox parish web site mentioned in another post. Nor does it seem to recognize any distinction between the "discipline" that has evolved around the administration of the Mystery to the physically sick and dying and that which has evolved around the administration of the Mystery to the faithful (whether physically sick or not) during Great Lent. Finally it seems to assume that the discipline that has developed in the Roman Church regarding General Absolution is applicable to the Eastern Churches' practice regarding Holy Anointing during Great Lent.

To put the issue more concretely:

Assume that a person had committed serious sin, but had not yet gone to Confession and received absolution. If that person had found him/herself in the crypt of the Basilica in Washngton on Great and Holy Wednesday, and had taken a seat in the Byzantine chapel as the Liturgy of the Presanctified began:

a) Could/should that person, assuming he/she was truly sorry for the sins he/she had committed, have approached the priest to receive the Mystery of Holy Anointing?

b) What effect, if any, would the Anointing have on that person?

c) Could/should that person later have approached the priest as the Liturgy continued to receive the Eucharist?

d) What would be the spiritual consequence of that person having received the Eucharist?

Before this topic slips off everyone's radar (as it has in the past when I have posted questions about it), I want to ask again if there are any among the membership who can clarify what appear to be significant differences among both Catholics and Orthodox regarding:

A. The nature of Holy Anointing: Is it a Sacrament/Mystery or merely a sacramental?

B. The difference(s), if any, between the nature/essence/effect of the Mystery as celebrated during Great Lent and the nature/essence/effect of the Mystery as celebrated for an individual who is sick or in danger of death: Are both of these true "Mysteria" or is the Lenten celebration somehow different? If they are both Mysteria, what differences are there / should there be between them?

C. The extent to which other considerations could/should influence the understanding of the Mystery/Sacrament and the discipline applicable to its celebration: Has the decline in the use of individual Confession given rise to misgivings about the availability of a more open-handed form of absolution? Are these misgivings justified? Does the restrictive approach now being taken by the Latin Church toward the use of General Absolution (after a period in which it was much more generously made available) influence Eastern thinking on the use of Holy Anointing? What should Orthodox and Eastern Catholics make of the Latin experience? Do earlier views on the limited frequency of both Holy Eucharist and Confession/Penance/Reconciliation in both Orthodoxy and the Latin Church influence current thinking on Holy Anointing? Is the tendency toward rigorism in interpreting the operation of the Mystery, with its emphasis on rubrics/canon law, necessary/appropriate?

D. The differences in approach that appear to exist at the parish level in the celebration of this Mystery: Why should one parish choose to caution its members about the restrictions believed to be imposed on the Mystery by canon law, while another say nothing about these matters? Why should some parishes offer the Mystery to all who attend the appropriate evening liturgy during Great Lent (even non-members of the particular church) while others caution non-members to approach only for a blessing (as might be done for the Eucharist)?

Is this a matter on which there is simply so much disagreement in our Churches that the wisest course seems to be silence?

I am still hoping for some clarification on these matters. There seem to be several different views. The Deacon, and others, have articulated one view quite firmly, although it is not immediately clear why rubrics, or canon law relating to another Sacrament, should prevail over the clear intent evidenced by the language used in administering the Mysterion.

As not all Orthodox (or all Eastern Catholics) share the more restrictive view, it is tempting to suggest that this might be a matter on which a variety of positions may legitimately be held. But that probably raises still further concerns and opens up a whole new subject.

On balance, I find it hard to uderstand why there should not be the theological equivalent of a "duck test" applied here: If it looks like it absolves from all sin, and sounds like it absolves from all sin, then maybe it does absolve from all sin and the recipient, rightly disposed in mind and spirit, is truly "anointed to Glory."

Tim,

I think the fact that Latin Church is so restrictive about it confirms the fact that sin is forgiven by Anointing of the Sick. They don't want any forgiveness given without auricular confession, so General Absoultion and Anointing are restricted.

The Byzantine Church while valuing auricular confession, and perhaps being even slightly stricter about confessing before reception of Communion sees no reason to limit Anointing since all are sick and in need of healing.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Hearts and Gentle People,

The Utterly Precise Significance of the administration of the Mystery of the Holy Oil on Holy and Great Wednesday does not require us to worry about it. It is not in any way harmful, or scandalous, or the sort of controversy which threatens to rip the Church apart at the seams.

Let it be, and spend Holy Week meditating on the events of Holy Week. If the Holy Oil bothers you, don't bother to come. If it comforts you, come by all means and be welcome. In either event, do not worry.

As to Confession, I've been happily involved with the Holy Oil for longer than I have been a priest, and I can assure anyone that the administration of the Holy Oil does not seem to reduce the number of people coming to Confession. As to whether someone comes to Confession before or after the Holy Oil - well, it is not up to us to worry about such a picayune matter.

I've been privileged to serve the Holy Oil with at least two Greek-Catholic Bishops, both of whom were quite comfortable (well, actually, one of them had a sore throat) with the service. Just once I was privileged to be one of seven priests offering the service - which is the proper number if seven priests can be assembled. It would be lovely to try to do this in at least some of our cathedrals.

Wishing you every blessing,

Father Serge

In the musical spirit of Fr. Serge's kind response ("Dear Hearts and Gentle People"), I am tempted to break out in a chorus of that old favorite, "Don't worry! ... Be happy!" Particularly as I see that Deacon Lance now also seems to be expressing a more flexible viewpoint than I thought I saw reflected in his and other posts.

As I pointed our in my earlier posts, however, our several ecclesial communities do not all seem to be populated by "gentle people" (clerical or lay) and I suspect that, even if I could find a version of "Don't worry! ... Be happy!" sung to a prostopinije or Galician chant melody, it might not impress the rigorists among us. Whether it is or is not the Faith of the Church that the Mystery of Anointing absolves from serious sin is not mere theological flyspecking.

We are talking here about real people, with real souls, and, in light of their real consciences, real sins from which they seek absolution through reception of the Mystery of Anointing. A person who prepares to approach/receive the Mystery under one set of assumptions and discovers, either before or after Anointing, and before or after receiving the Eucharist, that those assumptions are not shared by the Minister of the Mystery or the Minister of the Eucharist might reasonably be expected to be, at the least, disedified, if not confused and even alienated.

It may be that Fr. Serge's approach is the only one that can be adopted in a situation that is more unsettled than one would expect it to be after so many centuries. It does not seem to be an approach that would find favor with those who think that Catholic Canon law (Eastern or Western) or rubrics settle the matter. It also seems unlikely to sit well with some Romans who are still grappling with the after-effects of their experiments with General Absolution (any more than the presence of married 'Uniate' clergy sat well with some American hierarchs of 'blessed' memory).

In short, I would be delighted if my Faith Community and others (from hierarchs to parish priests and people in the pews) could adopt Fr. Serge's generous and flexible point of view, but it may be that we are more prisoners of our history than we would wish.