Posted on 10/24/2005 8:02:08 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 24, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The Vatican has reiterated that that only a priest -- that is, bishops and presbyters -- may administer the sacrament of the anointing of the sick.
The Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith emphasized that point in a Note published in response to several questions it had received in recent years.
"Neither deacons nor lay persons therefore may exercise such ministry and any action in this connection is a simulation of the sacrament" and would be "invalid," said the dicastery. Canon law provides sanctions for such an action, it added.
The congregation's "Note on the Ministry of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick" was published Friday in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano.
It had been issued by the congregation last Feb. 11, World Day of the Sick, with the signature of its then prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI).
The Note, also signed by the dicastery's secretary Archbishop Angelo Amato, is addressed to the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, bishops' conferences and Eastern synods.
In an accompanying letter, the then prefect said he was attaching a brief note on the history of the doctrine in this regard prepared by an expert.
Trent's teachings
The "brief note" is a commentary, also published in the Vatican newspaper, which explains that "in these last decades theological tendencies have been manifested that cast doubt on the Doctrine of the Church, according to which the minister of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick 'est omnis et solus sacerdos,'" in keeping with the formulation of the Council of Trent (1542-1563).
"The topic," it continued, "is addressed with preference from the pastoral point of view, especially taking into account those areas in which the scarcity of priests makes the timely administration of the Sacrament difficult, while such difficulty might be resolved if the Permanent Deacons and also qualified lay persons could be delegated ministers of the Sacrament.
"The Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith intends to call attention to these tendencies, to avoid the danger of the existence of attempts to put them into practice, in detriment of the faith and with grave spiritual harm of the sick whom one wants to help."
The commentary continued: "Catholic theology has seen in the Letter of James (5,14-15) the biblical basis for the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. The author, after giving several counsels relative to Christian life, also offers a norm for the sick: '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.'"
"In this text, the Church, under the action of the Holy Spirit, has identified in the course of the centuries the essential elements of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick," the commentary stated.
Definitive
The Vatican Note describes as "definitive tenenda" -- to be considered in a definitive manner -- the doctrine that makes the priest the only minister of the sacrament.
The Greek words of the Letter of James, which the Vulgate translates as "presbyteros Ecclesiae," "cannot refer to the elders of the community, but to the particular category of faithful to whom, by the imposition of hands, the Holy Spirit had placed to lead the Church of God," the commentary explained.
Following a brief review of Church history, the commentary arrives at the Council of Trent, which spells out the form of the sacrament. Trent anathematized "those who deny that the Anointing of the Sick is one of the seven Sacraments and that the minister of that Sacrament is solely the priest."
The doctrine of Trent was codified in the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917, repeated almost verbatim in the existing Code of Canon Law (see Canon 1003.1) of 1983 and in the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches of 1990 (Cf. Canon 739.1).
The commentary reminds about "the particular dignity and efficacy" of the sacrament, underlining that the priest, being its minister, "makes present in an altogether particular way the Lord Jesus Christ, Head of the Church," because "He who acts in this Sacrament is Jesus Christ," while the priest is the "visible" instrument.
Yes, he did carry the gifts. It was very solemn.
The quoted Encyclopedia dates from fifty years before the offertory procession was begun, or re-established, or whatever.
"The quoted Encyclopedia dates from fifty years before the offertory procession was begun, or re-established, or whatever."
Well, so much for that theory! :)
I hope you baptized him "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", not in the name "of Jesus". Baptism in the name of Christ alone is invalid.
That is correct, my statement only means I was not doing anything in MY NAME!
Nice chant. We chant what is called the Cherubic Hymn during the Great Entrance:
"We who mystically represent the Cherubim sing the thrice holy hymn to the life giving Trinity. Let us set aside all the cares of life that we may receive the King of all invisibly escorted by the angelic hosts. Alleluia. Alleluia. Alleluia."
Here's a link to the Hymn in English along with a bit of the prayers just before, during and after the Hymn. By the way, not all priests have an accent like the one on the clip! :)
http://stjohnsbluepoint.org/sounds/CherubicHymn.MP3
And since you accept "baptism of desire" why the concern? ;-)
(1) Baptism of desire requires perfect contrition or love of God above all things, whereas baptism of water requires only attrition, or sorrow for sins because of the fear of punishment;
(2) Children cannot be saved by baptism of desire;
(3) Simulation of a sacrament, even by one invincibly ignorant of the required matter and form, is a grave sin; moreover, it is harmful to the dignity of the sacrament;
(4) Baptism of desire does not remit the temporal punishment due to sin;
(5) Baptism of desire does not imprint the baptismal character, and it is fitting that men "be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the character" (St. Thomas, III q. 68 a. 1). By a similar reason, "in danger of death children should be confirmed even if they have not yet attained the age of discretion" (CCC 1307), even though the reception of this sacrament is, for infants, in no way necessary for salvation.
If you consult St. Alphonsus Liguori's "Theologia Moralis", you will find that he treats extensively of the required form and matter of baptism of water, as regards both lawfulness and validity, directly after affirming the "de fide" status of baptism of desire.
So we never really do know if anyone has ever been saved by baptism of desire, since we cannot know if they had perfect contrition.
(2) Children cannot be saved by baptism of desire-not applicable to CA Guy's example.
(3) Simulation of a sacrament, not applicable to CA Guy's example
(4) Baptism of desire does not remit the temporal punishment due to sin -so now you're worried about purgatory?
(5 Baptism of desire does not imprint the baptismal character,.. So I've heard, and it is not actually a sacrament yet... it works just like one. Never mind, I don't think this will ever be "clear" to me.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Who on the thread was asserting that we know who is perfectly contrite for his sins? One could say the same thing of perfect contrition sufficing for the Sacrament of Penance; do you think that the Catholic doctrine on that matter ought to be doubted too? "Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament ..." (Trent, Sess. VI, Decree on Justification, cap. xiv.)
not applicable to CA Guy's example
Baptizing "in the name of Jesus" (as opposed to in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) is the simulation of a sacrament, because the form is defective.
so now you're worried about purgatory?
One common opinion is that the fires of purgatory are the same as those of Hell (St. Thomas teaches this, so do many others). St. Augustine says that the fire of purgatory is worse than any pain we could suffer in this world. I think that's something to worry about.
Never mind, I don't think this will ever be "clear" to me.
We should accept the teaching of the Church whether we can understand the reasons for it or not. In such a case, you should remind yourself of the teaching of St. Ignatius: "Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed."
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just trying to have fun with you, hence the ";-)" - although you don't seem to be having any fun, =( so I'll stop now.
>>Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Just because you feel that you have not been called to spread the gospel of Christ in this manner, does not mean that others aren't called. If someone is trying to spread their own beliefs that aren't rooted it the truth (Jesus), then it will fail. However, You are called to spread the gospel of Christ and it doesn't always bring peace.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household.
Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.>>
Good! Go spread some around where they will appreciate it. We already got our share over here.
Sharing the Good News is not telling someone on your team that they are not doing things right, get it?
(maroon)
I'm thinking that could just be heartburn and not God, take some Maalox, study Catholicism and get back with us in a few years and tell us all you know and what we don't.
No, but he could take them Communion and pray with them.
Once upon a time, I would read the commentaries such as those here and use the rhetoric as a good excuse to flee from my obligations as a Christian. Obligations such as attending church, giving as I had been blessed, and even praying. I have come to realize that many of you are sincere in you candor, and your opinion of your OWN ideas will never be swayed. Since the concensus is that the Bible is correct, and it is inspired......I tend to concentrate (i.e. try hardest) on the things that apply to my life, the things that matter to God. If any of you have prayed about the translation of "priest" or "elder" or "saint", and gotten an answer, then you are more blessed than me. I tried it and woke up thinking I had other things to work on, and decided that was my answer.
I'm not sure I have anything to say other than I think none of you have the answers......but I'll still be asking the Lord for guidance.....
You are correct. In fact, some priests still use the veil (simply called a chalice veil). The chalice, with the purificator, the paten with the host resting on top of it, and the pall on top of the whole "package," are covered by the veil, which is the same color as the vestments of the priest. In addition, a "burse," a flat cloth container, which contains the corporal, on which the consecrated host rests during Mass, is put on top of the chapel veil. The wine and water are usually put on the credence table before Mass. If more hosts need to be consecrated, a ciborium full of unconsecrated hosts, is placed on the altar before Mass.
You confuse the common priesthood with the Ministerial Priesthood. A frequent mistake made by the Scripturally ignorant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.