SACRAMENTS and HEALING:
A TYPOLOGY of the RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN TWO DIMENSIONS of SALVATION
  Patrick Prétot, OSB *
 

 

Studia Liturgica An International Ecumenical Review for Liturgical Research and Renewal vol. 36 (2006) pp. 34-69


 I. Approaches II. Bonaventure III Catholic Ritual IV Updating


    In a 2005 contribution available on the World Council of Churches website,’1 His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Apostolic Armenian Church of Cilicia and moderator of the Central Committee of the WCC, invites his audience to rediscover the Church’s ministry of healing in a world in “desperate need of healing in almost all spheres of human life.” According to Aram I, “healing belongs to the very esse of the Church,” and it is therefore necessary to correct “the prevailing missiological misconception that considers healing a ‘specialized ministry’ of the Church and neglects it as a core element.” Referring to the history of the ecumenical movement which, it seems, has never lost sight of this issue,2 he concludes that it is a question of coming to “an ecclesiological understanding that perceives healing to be integral to the Church’s being.”

    I understand his conviction as an encouraging call to responsible thought and action for the theologian of the sacraments. This French-language lecture should have been given by my former teacher and present colleague in sacramental theology, Professor Louis-Marie Chauvet, whose seminal work Symbole et sacrement remains one of the essential references for research in sacramental theology for the French-speaking world.3 p.35

When it was suggested that I accept this speaking engagement in his place, and that I would do so under the planned conditions, in other words, that I should deal with the Congress theme of “healing a broken world” from the specific angle of sacramental theology, I began with a great deal of anxiety.

    In the works of sacramental theology from the past forty years, those that I know and above all those I have learned from, this theme is hardly taken into account. In the courses on the sacraments that I teach, this question is nearly absent, because my principal preoccupation is elsewhere. I try to respond to the question “Why do we celebrate the sacraments?” to explain the pertinence of sacramental practice in French society, where the sacraments are in decline.4 My emphasis on the meaning of the sacraments risks putting the question of knowing how the sacraments work in our lives into the background.

    In a world where medicine seems constantly to extend its reach, the question of sacramental healing could seem to be naively provocative. Yet, the Catholicos’ suggestions fortunately remind us that healing is at the heart of the Christian faith. Since “healing belongs to the very esse of the Church,” it is necessary to correct “the prevailing missiological misconception that considers healing a ‘specialized ministry’ of the church and neglects it as a core element.” Thus, I agree with the position that healing is “integral to the Church’s being.”5

    Since we seem to have lost sight of the relation between sacraments and healing, it seems useful to address the question from a historical perspective. I do not intend to present an exhaustive history, but simply to identify some aspects of the relation and contribute to our reflection. Though my starting point is an ecumenical text, I will focus on the Roman Catholic viewpoint in order to limit the scope of the question.

    I will combine two approaches: the history of sacramental theology and praxis and the method of models, understood here in the Weberian sense as “ideal images” that do not claim to describe reality, but rather define the angle of analyses.6 This modest proposal is heuristic; in other words, it seeks to define a question rather than to defend an argument. p.36

    I will proceed in four steps. The first will try to define the question. The two following steps will propose two models. A last step will summarize the stakes and new issues, such as the relationship of human beings to illness in a world confronted with the progress and profound questions of medicine.

 I. APPROACHES to the ISSUE

 

 


I. APPROACHES to the ISSUE
 

 

 

 

    I will begin with an experience described in the context of WCC work. I will then return to Catholicos Aram I’s viewpoint before describing the development of the relationship between sacrament and healing in history.

 

 


   [1] A. Rediscovery in Process
 

 

 

    For some time, we have been witnessing a “better understanding of healing” as well as a renaissance in the church’s ministry of healing. A sign of this rediscovery is the recent world conference on Mission and Evangelism (CME) organized by the WCC under the auspices of the Church in Greece and which was held in Athens, May 9-16, 2005, under the title “Come, Holy Spirit, heal and reconcile!” Gathering more than 500 delegates from every continent and from every church and confession, this meeting wished to give to its participants “better means for forging communities that bring healing by their way of celebrating, of witnessing and of bearing reconciliation and forgiveness.”7

    In an article entitled, “The Churches and the Challenge of Healing in a Sick World,” written for this gathering in Athens, the Canadian journalist Hugh McCullum noted that if “faith healing and spiritual healing was always part of the ministry of the Church,” yet “for many they smack of magic, of mystical claims to ‘impossible healings’—so many elements completely foreign to ‘western’ models of religion.” But, conversely, he continues, “these models themselves are sometimes considered as leftovers of aging churches which have lost touch with the living source of healing power. At the heart of this tension, the largest pandemic of the modern world, HIV/AIDS, is in the process of changing the concept of what the healing ministry of the Church can mean.”8

    In this context, McCullum recounts the story of a eucharistic celebration with a healing service by a charismatic and theologically “orthodox” priest in an p.37 Anglican parish of a Boston suburb.9 After having revealed to the congregation in his homily the existence of a healing service in the Book of Common Prayer, he proposed an anointing with oil and laying on of hands to all those who desired it. A man who had just been diagnosed with an advanced stage of cancer came forward. The priest prayed for him, for the doctors and for the treatments he had undergone. In addition, while he was praying for an elderly woman, he said, “I had the impression that she had something very serious with her pancreas.” A little while later, the doctor of the man with cancer declared cautiously a “sudden and inexplicable remission.” As for the old woman, a doctor she consulted after this celebration thanked her for having asked him to examine her pancreas because “during the examination he noticed the beginning of a problem.”

    The essential is not so much in the therapeutic efficacy of this celebration, and that to the benefit of the people who were not expecting this experience, but in the relation to the sacrament and healing that the author notices. In point of fact, a parishioner had said to the priest, “You don’t seem like a charismatic, you do not act like they do, you have never spoken of the gifts of the Spirit given in the Letter to the Corinthians.” In other words, the parishioner was amazed that the celebration of a sacrament could be effective without calling on the notion     of charismatic power.

What are we to make of such a story that has parallels in all churches and Christian confessions? There is a real difficulty today of thinking of the relation-ship between worship and healing. In the end, one would admit the possibility of miraculous healing, be it linked to a charismatic healer or with a place like Lourdes, but the idea that a sacrament could “heal” seems to have become foreign to our way of thinking.

 

 


   [1] B. The Mission of Christ as Foundation for the Relationship
         between Sacraments and Healing in the Life of the Church

 

 

 

This is where the intervention of the Catholicos Aram I becomes enlightening. For him, in effect it is Christ who is the foundation of the relationship between sacramentality and healing because he is the “great healer of all time.” Three major aspects renew the issue.

    1. Healing is anchored in the revelation of God. Thus it constitutes “an essential dimension of the mission of Christ, as well as a concrete manifestation of his work of redemption.” It is thus equally “a sign and an anticipation of the eschatological coming of the Kingdom of God (cf. Luke 10:9) and the participation in the Kingdom of God which will be totally complete in the parousia.” p.38

    2. What is more, Christ entrusted the mission of healing to his disciples: “heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons; the Kingdom of God is among you.” 10And the Acts of the Apostles gives multiple testimonies to the fact that “healing became an essential component of the mission of the Early Church.” 11The transmission of the healing mission of Christ to the apostles and through them to the Church must affect ecclesiological concepts. By considering healing as “essential to the Church’s being,” the healing mission is placed at the heart of all activity of the Church as it is manifested through sacramental life, diaconal activity and evangelization. When the Church acts in the world, it is the healing work of Christ that it pursues, but this mission cannot be reduced to sacramental praxis.

    3. One would be able to confirm this by a study showing the importance of the theme in the New Testament.12 Even by limiting ourselves to the Gospel of Matthew, it appears very quickly that the vocabulary of healing—notably through the use of the terms therapeuo 13 and iaomai 14 is constantly present and that scenes of healing recur throughout the Gospel.15 Matthew goes so far as to view healing as a verification of the fulfillment of the scriptures. In Chapter 8, Matthew points out: “he . . . cured all who were sick. This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases’ “ (vv. 16-17).

    From these three preliminary remarks, we can already draw several key points.

1. If one considers the question of the relationship between sacraments and healing, it is the relationship between the mission of Christ and that of the church which appears immediately as an obligatory issue.16

2. In the second place, because healing appears in the gospel as an eschatological sign, the theme of “sacraments and healing” highlights the “sign” quality of the sacraments. Moreover, from this perspective, healing appears less as an effect to obtain than as a possible manifestation of divine grace given in order to strengthen  p.39 faith. On this point, the end of the Gospel of Mark is even more significant by virtue of the post-paschal context: “And he said to them, ‘Go into all the whole world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. . . . And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will ... lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover’ “ (16:15-18). This invites us to think about the relationship of healing and sacraments without forgetting that sacramental efficacy, with regard to the sick, belongs to the order of eschatological realities in the aftermath of the resurrection. The sacraments are not just another therapeutic process, but rather signs of the Kingdom which has come in and by the Passover of Jesus Christ.

3. In the third place, since healing attests the fulfillment of the scriptures, the link between the Word of God and sacraments of faith finds again its foundation. It is the Word made effective in the rite which is the power of healing, as one sees in Augustine, for whom the sacramentum is a verbum visibile or “consecrated by the words of the gospel.” It receives its force and its efficacy from the Word of God.17 The performative word of the scriptures is accomplished’18 in the sacrament which “effects what it signifies,” according to the Scholastic adage.

 

 


   [1] C. Gradually Forgotten
 

 

 

    Nevertheless, despite the massive presence of the theme in the New and Old Testaments, despite Christian praxis of the first millennium, it is possible to follow Aram I when he states that “in the later centuries, however, due to historical circumstances, healing lost much of its significance in the life and witness of the church.” 19 To begin to perceive this, we will limit our discussion to the development of the theology of the anointing of the sick and its effects.20

    In 850, the Council of Pavia considers bodily healing as an effect of the sacrament. In reference to the letter of James, it considers the anointing of the sick as a “saving sacrament” (salutare sacramentum) and a “great and very desirable mystery (magnum sane ac valde appetendum mysterium), by which, if asked for p.40 in faith, sin is remitted and as a result also bodily health (corporalis salus) is restored.”21 It seems that this Council means above all to reaffirm the ancient discipline of the Decree of Innocent I (416) in which anointing cannot be given to penitents because it “is of the order of a sacrament” (nam paenitentibus istud infundi non potest, quia genus est sacramenti).22 In other words, anointing, being a sacrament, required, as did every sacrament, belonging to the communion of the Church in order to be celebrated in the faith of the Church.

    But by its very attachment to the ancient tradition, the canon of the Council of Pavia underlines the process of development by which anointing was going to become an integral part of penitence. Indeed, until the twelfth century, the most common order of the sacraments was:

l) penance, including reconciliation,

2) anointing, and finally

3) viaticum,

which shows “the importance of anointing as complement of penitence,”23 but also its own characteristic as sacrament for the sick and the specific place of viaticum as sacrament for the voyage. But from then on, it is the order of[:]

[1] penance,

[2] viaticum and

[3] extreme unction

that will be favored until the contemporary period, which, on the one hand, makes anointing the sacrament of preparation for death and, on the other, makes of penance the preparation for viaticum.24

    The Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence in 1439, after having defined the seven sacraments including “extreme unction” (extrema unctio), explains that the sacraments “contain grace and confer it on those who receive them worthily,” and in addition indicates that the first five sacraments—including extreme unction—have been ordained for “spiritual perfection” (ad spiritualem perfectionem). It works a kind of withdrawal with regard to the saving effect, by associating the effects of penance and anointing, which had been inseparable in practice since the medieval period:25

If, by sin, we fall into a sickness of the soul (aegritudinem animae), we are healed spiritually (spiritualiter sanamur) by penance. And both spiritually and  p.41 bodily, according as our souls have need (spiritualiter etiam et corporaliter, prout animae expedit), we are healed by extreme unction.26

While the bodily effect of the sacrament is still maintained, especially since the epistle of James is considered as the text of institution, yet the essential effects move toward the soul, bodily healing being subordinated to the good of the soul. On this point the Council of Florence is an echo of high scholasticism since Hugh of Saint Victor,27 as well as Thomas Aquinas28 and Bonaventure,29 adopt this position. Nevertheless, the reflection of Saint Thomas in Contra Gentiles shows that this position is based on an anthropology of the sick person which gives to the body the status of instrument with regard to the soul. In this perspective, the infirmity of the body can be either useful to the soul—or on the contrary an “obstacle to the health of the soul” by hindering the exercise of the virtues—and in this case the healing of the body becomes useful to the health of the soul. According to Saint Thomas, “it is good that one can use against sin, to the degree that bodily sickness comes from sin, a certain spiritual remedy, a remedy by which can come the healing of the sickness of the body, when this is profitable for salvation.”30

    The decree of the Council of Trent only repeats this traditional teaching on the effect of the sacrament and assigns the effect on the health of the body to the last place, while allowing for the possibility of an eventual effect.31 p.42

 

 


   [1] D. The Shift of the Center of Gravity: from Sickness to Sin
 

 

 

    A steady shift of accent from sickness toward sin thus evolved, which can lead one to think that it was favored by a focus on James 5:13-15, which became the major scriptural argument.32

Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save (sôsei) the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up (egerei), and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.

Without entering into a discussion on this text as scriptural foundation for the institution of the sacrament,33 one can note that this passage occurs in a kind of spiritual directory, which finishes at verse 16 with this advice: “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed (iathète). The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.”

    The interpretation of this passage is difficult because of the ambiguity of the verbs sôzein and egerein, which can designate both recovery of health and eschatological salvation.34 One can underline nevertheless that this text designates forgiveness of sins as one of the effects of anointing, but without forgetting that the context betrays a perspective where the link between sickness and sin enters into a larger situation of spiritual combat where they become places of calling for confidence in God, coming from the promise that the prayer will be answered. p.41

    The link between sickness and sin is thus essential even if it entails a fair reluctance for our mentalities. Certain New Testament texts seem to deny this connection, for example the story of the healing of the man born blind in chapter 9 of the Gospel of John. To the question of his disciples, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus responds, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him” (9:2-3).

    In the Old Testament, on the contrary, sickness is presented as the effect of divine intervention35 and constitutes—one can think here of Psalm 37(38)—a chastisement for sin. Yet because biblical anthropology does not separate soul from body, it is good to avoid a sequential understanding of this process, under the form: sin and, by consequence, sickness. In reality, humans are revealed as both sick and sinner, inseparably, and “in his testing, a person discovers himself in a new relationship with the one who at the same time strikes him, supports him and alone can heal him.”36

    Yet even in the New Testament, many healings, and notably that of the paralytic in Capernaum (Mark 2:1-12; Matt 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26), show that this relationship between sickness and sin remains constitutive. When they bring the sick man to Jesus, it is as much in the sinner as in the paralytic that Jesus is interested. When they lower him through the roof, Jesus announces: “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). In the second place, the healing of the paralytic appears as the sign given to the crowd that Jesus has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10-11). Finally, this miracle announces eschatological salvation in so far as the verb egerein is used also in Mark 12:26 with regard to the resurrection of the dead and the healing is presented as an unprecedented event.37

    Clearly, if there is really a link between sickness and sin, it is because Christ brings salvation to all, a salvation which is directed as much towards the death of sin as towards the death that sickness confronts us with and toward which it leads.

    It is good now to look at how these facts that we just considered figure in the two models chosen for their representative value. We will borrow the first model from Saint Bonaventure. The sacramental theology of Bonaventure is less called p.44 upon in theological reflection than that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, but for the subject we are considering, it is more directly relevant because Bonaventure’s treatise on the sacraments is entitled precisely “Sacramental Remedies” (De medicina sacramentali). The second model is taken from a very different kind of source: the Roman Ritual of the sacrament of the sick from 1972, a sacrament that we just saw can be a good example of the relationship between sacraments and healing.

 II. ST. BONAVENTURE

 

 


II. ST. BONAVENTURE: Sacramental Theology under the Sign of Healing
 

 

 

 

    Among the medieval theologians, Saint Bonaventure (1217–1274) occupies, it seems, a unique place. Deeply marked by Franciscan thought,38 he favors a conception of theology in the line of Saint Francis that “refuses neither study nor science, but puts on them the condition that the brothers be detached from every spirit of possessiveness and that they be theologians ‘on their knees.’ 39The theological endeavor is thus inseparable from spiritual research, as the body of bonaventurian writings itself shows. Of these writings, two rank as major works: first, the Breviloquium—which H. de Lubac says “manifests a force of total synthesis that was perhaps never to be equaled”40—and second, the Itinerarium mentis in Deum, which witnesses to theological research conceived as a spiritual journey.41

    When Thomas Aquinas envisages the question of the sacraments, he first responds to the question of knowing what a sacrament is. He then deduces a series of consequences on their necessity, their effects, their causes, even their number.42 For Bonaventure, on the contrary, the sacramental section of the Breviloquium fits into a journey of man corrupted by sin, who returns to God thanks to the incarnation of the Word, the grace of the Holy Spirit, and sacramental remedies.

    The theology of Bonaventure, which finds its source in the Commentary on the Sentences,43 is thus directly linked to the thought of Peter Lombard, for whom the p.45 sacraments were prefigured in the parable of the Good Samaritan: “The Good Samaritan, in approaching the wounded man, procures for his healing the bandages of the sacraments because against the wounds of original sin and actual sin God has instituted the remedies of the sacraments.”44 This position, which draws heavily on the patristic witness,45 finds expression in the thirteenth-century representations of the parable of the Good Samaritan that make the connection between creation, sin and salvation.46 In the stained glass windows of Chartres, for example, above the gospel story, it is all of salvation history which finds itself in relation with the acts of the Good Samaritan identified as Christ himself. Bonaventure strongly situates his theology in this perspective. The definition of sacraments contains the seed for everything, as proposed by Bonaventure right from the first chapter entitled De sacramentorum origine.

The sacraments are sensible signs, instituted by God as remedies (medicamenta) ... in which “secretly works, under the envelope of the sensible, a divine force” in such a way “that it represents by similitude, signifies by institution, confers by sanctification a certain spiritual grace.” By grace, the soul is healed (curatur) of the weakness of vice. It is primarily to that that the sacraments are ordained as their ultimate end; yet they serve also to humble, to instruct, to test. These are the secondary ends ordered to the principal end.47

This definition48 combines at the same time the sacrum secretum of Isidore of Seville, who attributes to the sacraments a hidden power—[p.46] divina virtus secretius operator49—and that of Hugh of Saint Victor, who conjugates three aspects: the representation by similitude, the signification by institution, and the sanctification by conferring grace.50 It places healing as first effect of the sacraments, but it is a question principally of healing of the soul: per quam anima curatur ab infirmitatibus vitiorum. And if Bonaventure adds other effects of the sacraments—humility, instruction, and testing—they take second place. The explanation which follows is very enlightening and deserves to be studied closely.

    The principal healer, who is the crucified Christ, that is, the Word Incarnate, dispenses all things with a supreme wisdom because he is God, and heals in a very merciful way because he is divinely incarnate. He must restore and heal the sick human race in a way which suits the sick person himself, which suits the sickness, which suits the occasion and the healing of the sickness itself.51

    The spiritual medicine of the sacraments, according to Bonaventure, is thus in the prolongation of the incarnation of the Word. For him the physician (medicus) is the Word incarnate, the sick person is “neither just spirit nor flesh, but spirit in mortal flesh,” whereas the sickness is “the original fault which infects the spirit by ignorance and the flesh by concupiscence.”52

    This vision of the sacraments as remedy is thus linked to a conception of redemption articulated with a theological anthropology: “The origin of this flaw, which can be attributed principally to the consent of reason, finds nevertheless its opportunity in the flesh.” From that time on, so that the remedy corresponds, it is necessary that it not be “only spiritual, but also that it participate in sensible signs. Thus, the sensible, having been for the soul an occasion for falling, would furnish an occasion for recovery.”53

    Bonaventure then shows how the “grace of healing,” which “is not given to the prideful, to unbelievers or to the contemptuous,” requires that the sensible signs be given by God “not only to sanctify, to give grace and thereby to heal,” but again, “to teach by their signification, to make humble by their reception, to train by their diversity.”54 It is a question thus of a medicine which is above all spiritual, but which aims at the healing of a person considered as a whole. [p.47]

    Let us summarize: the idea of medicina sacramentalis according to Bonaventure corresponds to a vision of salvation which includes the whole person. Yet the language used must not mislead us. Healing is essentially an eschatological sign of salvation which the Franciscan explains by linking the origin (ortus) of the sacraments, their use (usus) and their fruit (fructus): “At their source there is Christ the Lord; their use trains, instructs, and makes humble; their fruit is healing and the salvation of men.”55 In the context of scholastic causality, medicinal healing (medicinalis curatio) appears as final cause,56 and the corporal dimension passes clearly into the background to the benefit of sanctification. Bonaventure works thus a kind of conceptual slip from the medicinalis curatio to the medicamenta sanctificata because it is through the sacraments “that the soul is brought back from stain to sanctification.”57 From then, the sacraments are considered as realities that are so holy—Bonaventure multiplies the adjectives sancta, sacra and divina—that the memory of their effect on human life becomes blurred.58

 III. THE CATHOLIC RITUAL of ANOINTING of the SICK

 

 


III. THE CATHOLIC RITUAL of ANOINTING of the SICK
 

 

 

 

A. A Diversified Rite: Sacraments for the Sick

    The next part of our reflection considers the new Ordo unctionis infirmorum eorumque pastoralis curae of the Roman Catholic Church published December 7, 1972.59 It has three main chapters. The first chapter, entitled De visitatione et communione infirmorum, concerns visits to the sick. It includes the rite of communion brought to the sick which constitutes a means of maintaining the union between the sick person and the eucharistic assembly and of supporting him/her by “this act of Christian fraternity.”60 The second chapter deals with the anointing of the sick. While presenting the rites, it also responds to a certain number of pastoral questions concerning the celebration of this sacrament. Thus, to the question “To whom must one give the sacrament?” the response is formulated in p.48 this way: “One must be careful to give it to the faithful whose health has begun to be dangerously (periculose) threatened by sickness or age.”61 As for the question “Who is the minister of the sacrament?” the ritual keeps the discipline confirmed by the Council of Trent,62 which reserves the administration of this sacrament to the priest alone.63 Lastly, concerning the ways of celebrating, the ritual endorses a communal celebration within a eucharistic context and with a large gathering, this in part under the influence of the practice of pilgrimages, especially to Lourdes. The third chapter deals with communion and viaticum and is followed in the fourth chapter by an order for the sick in danger of death.64

    Thus there is not “a” sacrament but rather sacraments, in the plural, for the sick. This corresponds to an enlarged conception of sacramentality, which along the lines of K. Rahner or E. Schillebeeckx would include the sacraments in particular in a sacramental order in which Christ and the Church constitute the two foundational poles.65 The French-speaking ritual tends to underline, indeed to accentuate this orientation, in saying:

The sick person, threatened by the challenge of sickness and fighting against it, is helped in many ways, by his/her entourage, caregivers, and the Christian community. Among these acts of help and support, particular signs are offered to him/her, which witness in a special way to the love of God for and acting in him/her: the sacraments.66

In other words, the Catholic ritual for the sick includes a whole sacramental process which is not limited only to the anointing of the sick, but unfolds in a wider ensemble of “acts of help and support . . . which witness in a special way to the love of God” for the sick person, but also the love of God “acting in p.49 him/her.” The model makes the sick person not only the beneficiary of different sacramental actions but also, in his/her way and for the community (hence the importance of the communal dimension), a sign of the presence of Christ. It is the sick person who is made a partner of the community in a sacramental order which goes beyond the administration of a particular sacrament.

 

B. The Meaning of a Recent Transformation

    In fact, the Second Vatican Council did not only renew the term onctio infirmorum in preference to extrema unction,67 but also recommended the sequence of penance, anointing, and eucharist.68 The significance of this change of order is great because it places anointing in the orbit of an ecclesial celebration of the paschal mystery as underlined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):

Like all the sacraments the Anointing of the Sick is a liturgical and communal celebration. . . . It is very fitting to celebrate it within the Eucharist, the memorial of the Lord’s Passover. If circumstances suggest it, the celebration of the sacrament can be preceded by the sacrament of Penance and followed by the sacrament of the Eucharist. As the sacrament of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist should always be the last sacrament of the earthly journey, the “viaticum” for “passing over” to eternal life (CCC n. 1517).

While the eucharist in viaticum is clearly presented as the sacrament of the dying, the sacrament of the sick is a celebration of the Church, which associates the sick with the Passover of Christ and thus grants them strength and support to face their sickness. The basic reference for this renewed practice is to be found in n. 11 of the Constitution Lumen Gentium:

By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of her priests the whole Church commends the sick to the suffering and glorified Lord, asking that He may lighten their suffering and save them (cf. Jas 5:14-16); she exhorts them, p.50 moreover, to contribute to the welfare of the whole people of God by associating themselves freely with the passion and death of Christ (cf. Rom 8:17; Col 1:24; 2 Tim 2:11-12; 1 Pet 4:13).69

This brief but complex text finds its place in a wider discussion of the common priesthood of the faithful in the sacraments.70 The Catechism even sees a kind of inclusion between the sacraments of the sick and the sacraments of Christian initiation:

Thus, just as the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist form a unity called “the sacraments of Christian initiation,” so too it can be said that Penance, the Anointing of the Sick and the Eucharist as viaticum constitute at the end of Christian life “the sacraments that prepare for our heavenly homeland” or the sacraments that complete the earthly pilgrimage (CCC n. 1525).

In other words, the sick person exercises the priesthood of the faithful by becoming a living memorial of the Christian life represented by the sacraments of initiation to the Passover of Jesus Christ and, at the same time, the one who in his sickness itself is configured to Christ in his death and resurrection, in conformity with the teaching of the apostle Peter: “But rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ’s sufferings, so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed” (1 Pet 4:13).

    This vision that is based on a theology of the paschal mystery reestablishes the sick person in the Christian community while the contemporary medical context tends very often to isolate him, even physically. The end of Lumen Gentium n. 11, which recalls the universal vocation of holiness, points toward a kind of “vocation” for the sick and of which certain saints such as Bernadette Soubirous and Thérèse of Lisieux constitute examples:

Fortified by so many and such powerful means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state, are called by the Lord, each in his own way, to that perfect holiness whereby the Father Himself is perfect. p.51

 

C. The Ritual and Bodily Healing

    The celebration of the anointing of the sick unfolds as a journey comprising four elements, as P. Gy underlined in his presentation of the new ritual: “the four principal elements of the sacramental celebration are the imposition of the hands of one or more priests, the ‘prayer of faith,’ the blessing of the oil and the anointing itself.”71 It begins with the entrance rites, including the greeting, the sprinkling rite, the instruction, the prayer and finally a penitential rite.72 The French-speaking ritual offers three choices for the prayer which aims at the same request: that the sick person and his entourage may receive strength in trial and that the sacrament “renew in him faith in Christ, hope for a better life, and love which will never pass away.”73

    The celebration continues by a liturgy of the Word74 which unfolds in a litany,75 then by the anointing of the sick which includes two fundamental acts: the imposition of hands and the anointing.76 The imposition of hands is a rediscovery in the new ritual which the formula of James invites (“prayer over the sick”),77 the meaning of which is given by the last formula of the litany: “that you may give life and salvation to our brother, N., on whom we are going to lay our hands.”78

    The French-speaking ritual offers four schemas corresponding to four different pastoral situations79 that imply some variants concerning the order of the ritual, notably concerning the place of the litany.80 We can understand from this that the place and role of community prayer, mentioned by the epistle of James, can be understood in a variety of ways.

    It is not our intention to review the entire ritual. We limit ourselves simply to how it treats the relationship between sacrament and healing, while the introductory material of the French ritual evokes the therapeutic efficacy of the sacrament: “When it is received in the faith of the Church, this sign (= sacramental celebration) is strength and comfort, support in testing, and leaven for victory over the sickness if God wills.”81 p.52

    The prayer of blessing the oil is a reprise of the ancient prayer Emitte; it is reserved normally to the bishop and is included in the order of the chrism mass, but can be said in case of necessity for blessing the oil.82 Here one finds the affirmation of a bodily effect of the sacrament and indeed quite insistently so: “Send from heaven your Consoling Holy Spirit on this oil that your creation supplies for the strengthening of our bodies. May it become + by your blessing the holy oil that we receive from you, to relieve those who receive this anointing from sickness, body, soul, and spirit, to banish every pain, every physical, moral and spiritual evil.” It is only in the final petition that a more customary “spiritual” effect is mentioned: “May this oil become also the instrument which you use to give your grace, in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you for ever and ever.”83

    This prayer is of great importance because it fulfills the same function as the blessing of water for baptism.84 P. Gy, who had shown the value of this benediction as euchological prayer,85 summarizes its doctrinal importance: “This is an epiclesis, a prayer of healing for every sickness, but at the same time it awaits from the p.53 sacrament protection for the whole person, according to the Pauline trilogy of 1 Thess 5:23,” that is, the triology of body, soul, and spirit.86

    The Latin sacramental formula which accompanies the anointing—Per istam sanctam Unctionem et suam piissiamam misericordiam, adiuvet te Dominus gratia Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Ut a peccatis liberatum to salvet atque propitious allevet. Amen.87—leaves the question open, thanks to the use of the verb adjuvo (to help, to rescue), which can include both physical and spiritual effects. The French translation, by using the verb “réconforter” (strengthen) seems less inclusive: “N. by this holy anointing, may the Lord, in his great goodness, strengthen you by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thus, having been freed from your sins, may he save you and raise you up. Amen.”88

    We find the theme of healing in the prayer which follows the anointing. The French-speaking ritual offers six choices for the prayers, in view of the particular situation of the sick person. These prayers are for the most part new creations.89 Many contain formulas explicitly asking for healing, such as: “By the grace of the Holy Spirit, heal him from every evil, forgive his sins, take away from him all that causes him suffering, restore him to health, so that he can take up again among us the work that awaits him.”90 One of these prayers is even completely oriented to the request for the return of health: “May he find health again, so that he can resume a normal life and, with a renewed heart, give you thanks in the assembly of your faithful.”91

    In summary, we see easily that the Roman Ritual of the anointing of the sick corresponds to a vision of the sick person which does not separate “the body, the soul, and the spirit” but takes into account a person called to enter, through his trial, into the paschal mystery of Christ. Healing or strengthening given to the person comes first. The forgiveness of sins is certainly not forgotten, but the rediscovery of the sacraments for the sick has allowed a rebalancing of thought in the direction of a preparation for life, whereas the notion of extreme unction had led us to consider it almost exclusively from the penitential point of view.

    In addition, like every sacrament, the anointing of the sick includes a communitarian dimension, regardless of its mode of celebration. But the invitation to celebrate it within a eucharistic celebration is one of its major signs. In this, the p.54 ritual reintroduces the sick person into the heart of the community with a view to making him a living member of the church of which the assembly is the sign. It is in this light that one can understand the importance given to the ministry of the priest in a celebration: it underlines the strong ecclesial weight of this celebration, an ecclesiological dimension which must be seen in the context of the poor and the sick who are the first recipients of the Good News.

    We are here rather far from the model developed by Bonaventure. Physical healing is asked of God as a gift of the Holy Spirit, this same Spirit who heals the body as the tradition expresses it in, for example, the sequence of Pentecost: Veni Sancte Spiritus: “sana quod est saucium.”92 Healing invites the sick person to participate in the construction of Christ by becoming a member of the body of the saved called to enter into the Kingdom.

 

IV. Conclusion: An Attempt at Updating

 

 


IV. CONCLUSION: AN ATTEMPT at UPDATING
 

 

 

 

A. What is at Stake

    In this research we should have been able to consider also an example from the first millennium, notably from the patristic period. If we have preferred to omit this supplementary investigation, it is for several reasons—first of all, of course, our limited time. Then for the reasons of the complexity of the hermeneutic of the literature of the first millennium on this point, a period where neither the sacraments, nor sickness, nor healing would be considered with the same criteria as today. We can note here, following P. Gy, that the ancient church, at least according to the letter to Decentius (of Gubbio), seems not to have known any sacramental formula accompanying the anointing.93 What is more, the anointing would seem to be able to be done by a lay person and maybe even by the sick person.94 This signifies that the ritual followed quite another logic than that put in place in the Middle Ages. Finally, it is necessary to take into account the fact that it is in the middle of the twelfth century that one begins to see the emergence of sacramental doctrine and that the concern for coherence in the subject favored our omission of a patristic model.

    We must add that we have made a parallel between the medieval theological model of Bonaventure and a contemporary liturgical model, but which has its sources in much older strata of the Tradition as we saw, for example, with the prayer for the blessing of oil. One must not, however, judge one in the light of the other. A p.55 comparison between these two models asks us rather to consider that the theological logic and ritual logic do not follow the same language, the same path, or the same rhythm. Sacramental theology in the Roman Catholic world is often caught between doctrinal pronouncements of the past which received a canonical status at the Council of Trent and the liturgical practices that the Second Vatican Council renewed in drawing on the treasures of the practices of the first millennium.

    On the topic that concerns us, it seems to me possible to conclude that there is tension between ritual practice and received theology. On one hand, in the line of the solicitude of Jesus toward the sick, the ritual considers bodily healing as the first goal of the celebration in so far as it is the sign of salvation realized for the sick person but also for the Christian community which surrounds him. The gospel passage which best evokes this orientation is found in chapter 18 of Luke’s Gospel, with the healing of the blind man of Jericho:

They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” Then he shouted, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Those who were in front sternly ordered him to be quiet; but he shouted even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me see again.” Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.” Immediately he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, praised God (vv. 37-43).

    On the other hand, the theological elaborations developed a theology of the sacrament which, founded on a reading of the letter of James, detached from the example of Jesus himself, tends to favor a “spiritual” effect, an effect of “grace” for which healing can only be an imperfect sign. Hence the tendency to give to the sacrament the first goal of salvation, but salvation understood under the angle of the remission of sins, to the degree that theology was constructed at a time when the sacrament was lived under the model of extreme unction.

    This tension makes it a delicate task to take into account the questions currently raised by the evolution of medicine in the contemporary world, questions which lead one not only to challenge the efficacy of medical techniques but also to consider the sick person as a complete being, and to consider him in his globality.

    In a bestselling book, Professor David Servan-Schreiber, doctor and specialist in the cognitive neurosciences,95 recalls how he found himself questioned by p.56 some experiences which he believed indicated the failure of the medicine he had been teaching: “If,” he says, “after so many years of study and of formation, I was incapable of helping someone who mattered so much to me, what was the use of all this knowledge? In the course of the following months and years, I learned to open my spirit to numerous other ways of caring, and I discovered, to my great surprise, that they were not only more natural and more gentle, but also often more effective.”96

    But for the sacramental theologian, the question resides less in the diagnosis of failure than in the way chosen by the researcher to exit from it. He proposes, in effect, a medicine that takes into account the emotional life of patients and no longer considers the sick person as an object: “a new medicine of emotions is being born today . . . we have explored how to relieve depression, anxiety and stress with a group of methods which call above all on the body rather than language. This book describes the different components of this program, why we have chosen them, and how we have used them.”97 The preoccupations of a society characterized by stress, anxiety and depression join a strong trend of resistance to medical protocol that is more and more burdensome and costly for patients, and all this together is generating a major interest for this kind of rediscovery.

    The theme “sacrament and healing” thus resonates with the concerns of contemporary medicine. Of course, it is not a question of treating the sacraments, especially the anointing of the sick, as a specific technique of this “medicine of the emotions.” It is rather a question of understanding this type of research as an interpellation for taking seriously the power of sacraments in the matter of healing. The basic question can thus at the end of our study be reformulated in the following way: How are the Christian sacraments important for a world waiting for healing? In what and how do the Christian sacraments contribute specifically to this work of healing claimed not only as an essential dimension of the Christian vision of salvation but also as a possible way for the contemporary search for health?

 

B. A Continuing Reserve in Contemporary Theology

    Yet when one considers contemporary theological writing on the sacrament of the sick, it seems that a real constraint remains when it is a question of envisaging p.57 how a sacrament can be effective, including as a way of healing. We can see it in considering the proposals of some recent theologians.

    In a stimulating work from 1971, the Jesuit Bernard Sesboüé proposed under the title “Anointing of the sick, expression of the Good News in face of the fragility and finitude of human existence” some directions for a “new portrait of the anointing of the sick.”98 We can underline the word “expression” even if the principal aim of the author cannot be reduced to the use of this term. Sesboüé intends to take into account challenges to the attitude of the Church toward sickness and death.99 His thoughts are expressed through four reflections which are found at the juncture between pastoral concern and theology.100 The third is formulated as a promise: “Anointing must announce that Christian salvation is interested in the whole person” because the church “is interested at this moment in the body.” But in reality, it is for Sesboüé less a question of envisioning an effect on the body than of noting that it is given to the anointing of the sick “to highlight the love of God for our bodies, for which he desires healing and resurrection.” 101

    In the same period, Claude Ortemann concluded his book on the sacrament of the sick with an essay on its theological significance.102 Among the five affirmations of this text, two of which concern the forgiveness of sins, the author notes that anointing “procures the relief of sick person” but he understands this as “the reconciliation with the body,” “the restoration of solidarity with the world” and “ the integration of finitude and death.” And while he considers that anointing gives “a sense of healing,” the weight of his argument leans toward what might be the “meaning” of a healing if it occurs: “The sacrament gives to healing the sense of a new situation offering to divinized freedom a Christian task to realize, according to the meaning conferred on existence during the sickness.” 103

    More recently, in 1999, in an issue of La Maison Dieu entitled “Human Fragility and Liturgy,” offering the state of research nourished by pastoral work in a hospital, Louis-Michel Régnier tries above all to widen the perspective as much on the sacramental level as on the level of salvation. He does so in the wake of the work of L.-M. Chauvet for whom the sacramental dimension is “one of the constitutive dimensions of faith and of Christian existence,” which “is manifest and crystallizes in the sacraments” but where “the sacramental surpasses generally the particular sector of the sacraments.” 104

    Two affirmations show perfectly this refusal to be boxed in, ritually or theologically, in ways too narrow for taking into account the “partnership” 105which must necessarily mark solicitude for the sick. The first places anointing of the sick “at the heart of multiple signs capable of taking into account the presence of God,” and consequently “all that contributes to embracing the humanity of the one who has experienced vulnerability can become the place itself of the presence of God.” 106The second envisages the “relationship between healing and salvation,” but does so in order to underline that “healed physically or not, the sick can have the experience of a new life in spite of all”—which tends to relativize healing.107

    In all these three writers, it is striking that the question of healing is eluded to the profit of the consideration of the relation of the sick person himself, the relation between healing and salvation, or the meaning of healing. One can think that these accents are shared by most French-speaking theologians today.

C. Toward Healing Communities

    In France, currently, a good number of new communities, notably those that are connected with the charismatic movement,108 are developing services of healing, but to my knowledge at least, outside of charismatic circles themselves, the relationship between healing services and sacramental theology has benefited very little from taking these experiences seriously.109

    To consider this delicate question, the response to which goes beyond the object of this exposé, I have proposed a reflection using the method of different models. It was a matter of better understanding how the question was posed in the past and how it works in the current ritual. I hope I have clarified a little how it is possible to think about it today, in a context of transformation of the manifestations of healing, of medicine, and of sacraments.

    The point of convergence between current secular research around the questions of healing and theological research in the sacramental domain seems to me to be the idea of “healing communities”: for the sacramental theologian, influenced by Rahnerian theology, this aspect is decisive. In effect, in a world dominated by the media which tends to promote personal charisms of healing, attention to the sacramental question can help not only to avoid so many deviations towards gurus and charlatans, but also allow the church, our communities, to become anew the sign of Christ who heals by way of human instruments.


Translated by Laurence de Talençay and Douglas Martis;
translation revised by Katherine Shirk Lucas


NOTES


* Patrick Prétot, Director of the Institut Supérieur de Liturgie, Institut Catholique de Paris, and a member of the Centre National de Pastorale Liturgique, may he addressed at p.pretot@icp.fr.

1 His Holiness Aram I, Document No. GEN 2, Report of the Moderator of the Central Committee, February, 2005; website: http://www.oikoumene.org.

2 Ibid. “Healing has also been integral to the ecumenical agenda from the very inception of the modern ecumenical movement. The Edinburgh Conference (1910), the following missionary conferences, as well as the WCC assemblies and several major ecumenical consultations have raised the issue on a larger or smaller scale. It must be noted that in the ecumenical movement healing was mainly considered as part of the churches’ ‘medical missions,’ in a perspective linked to Western cultures. In the Tübingen consultation (1962) the issues of community and ‘primary health care’ came to the forefront and were linked to mission. Tübingen also emphasized the holistic nature and global scope of the church’s healing ministry. It was followed byTibingen II (1967), which established the Christian Medical Commission (CMC) within the programmatic structure of the WCC. For more than two decades, the CMC played a significant role in reminding the churches of the crucial importance of healing for the mission of the Church and by challenging them to take it more seriously.”

3 L.-M. Chauvet, Symbole et sacrement: une relecture sacramentelle de l’existence chrétienne, Cogitatio fidei 144 (Paris: Cerf, 1987); idem, Les sacrements: parole de Dieu au risque du corps, Vivre, croire, célébrer: Recherches (Paris: Ed. Ouvrières, 1993).

4 For example, the number of baptisms celebrated has diminished by a third in the last decade. See the statistics on website of the French Bishops’ Conference, http://www.cef.fr/catho/vieglise/stats. Between 1990 and 2002, the number of the baptisms went from 472,000 to 385,000, that of the marriages from 147,000 to 110,000, and that of the confirmations from 91,000 to 58,000.

5 Aram I, Report of the Moderator.

6 Cf. L. Villemin, “Service public de religion et communauté: Deux modèles d’ecclésialité pour la paroisse,” La Maison Dieu 229 (2002) 59-79, esp. 60; the author refers to the work of A. Dulles, Models of the Church (New York: Doubleday, 1974).

7 Cf. H. McCullum, “Healing and reconciliation theme: a first for WCC”; website http://www. mission2005.org.

8 H. McCullum, “Churches and the challenge of healing in a sick world”; website http://www. mission2005.org. Hugh McCullum is a Canadian journalist and member of the United Church of Canada. He lived in Zimbabwe and Kenya, and is associated with the work of communication in the WCC.

9 The priest is Canon Mark Pearson, cofounder of the New Creation Healing Center in the state of New Hampshire.

10 10 Matt 10:I, 5, 7; cf. Luke 9:1-2; 10:9.

11 Acts 3:1-10; 9:12, 17-18, 32-35; 14:19-20; 20:7-12.

12 Cf. F. McNutt, Le pouvoir de guérir (Paris: Cerf, 1980); H. Blocher, “La guérison, aperçus bibliques et dogmatiques,” Hokhma 67 (1998) 45-61; D. Marguerat, “Magie, guérison et parole dans les Actes des apôtres,” Etudes théologiques et religieuses 72 (1997) 197-208.

13 Matt 4:23; 4:24; 8:7; 8:16; 9:35; 10:1; 10:8; 12:10; 12:15; 12:22; 14:14; 15:30; 17:16; 17:18; 19:2; 21:14.

14 Matt 8:8; 8:13; 13:15; 15:28.

15 Cure of lepers: Matt 8:1-4; cure of the child of a centurion: Matt 8:5-13; cure of the mother-in-law of Peter: Matt 8:14-15; cure of paralytic man: Matt 9:1-8; cure of a woman who had suffered from hemorrhage: Matt 9:18-26; cure of two blind men: Matt 9:27-31; cure of a mute man: Matt 9:32-35; cure of the man with a withered hand: Matt 12:9-13; cure of a mute blind man: Matt 12:22; cure of the daughter of the Canaanite woman: Matt 15:21-28; cures close to the lake: Matt 15:29-31; cure of a demoniac epileptic: Matt 17:14-21.

16 Cf. II Vatican Council, Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 17.

17 Cf. L. Villette, Foi et sacrement, vol. I: Du Nouveau Testament à Saint Augustin, Travaux de 1’ Institut Catholique de Paris 5 (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1959) 225, who refers to Contra Faustum, XIX,16 (PL 42, 357; Zycha, CSEL 25, I, 213) and Tractatus in Evangelium Ioannis 80, 3, PL 35, 1840.

18 Here of course the words “perform” and “accomplish” are being used in a wider sense than everyday usage.

19 Aram I, Report of the Moderator.

20 On history of the anointing of the sick, cf. B. Poschmann, Pénitence et onction des maladies, Histoire des dogmes 23 (Paris: Cerf, 1966); C. Ortemann, Le sacrement des malades, Parole et Tradition (Paris, Ed. du Chalet, 1971), who refers to the dissertation by A. Chavasse, Etude sur l’onction des infirmes dans l’Église latine du lite siècle au XIe siècle, Facultés Catholiques de Lyon, 1938; partial publication (Lyon: Sacré-Coeur, 1942).

21 Council of Pavia, Canon 8, Mansi 14, 932E-9338, Denzinger-Schönmetzer hereafter Denzinger, Enchiridion Syrnbolorurn, 33rd ed. (1965) n. 620.

22 Innocent I, Letter Si institute ecclesiastica to Decentius de Gubbio, March 19, 416, in Denzinger, n. 216.

23 Cf. Poschmann, 213; on the letter of Innocent I, cf. 209-10.

24 Cf. e.g., Catechism of St. Pius X (1906), section on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction in “The Sacraments”: “When should Extreme Unction be received? A. Extreme Unction should be received when the illness is dangerous, and after the sick person has received, if possible, the sacraments of Penance and the Blessed Eucharist; it is even well to receive it while he has the use of his senses, and has still some hope of recovery.”

25 Cf. Poschmann, 211-21: “Contrairement à l’antiquité, depuis le début du Moyen Age, l’onction apparaît constamment associée à la confession et au viatique” (213).

26 Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians (Exultate Deo), November 22, 1439, Denzinger, n. 1311: “The first five sacraments are intended to secure the spiritual perfection of every man individually; the two last are ordained for the governance and increase of the Church. For through baptism we are horn again of the spirit; through confirmation we grow in grace and are strengthened in the faith; and when we have been horn again and strengthened we are fed by the divine food of the mass; but if, through sin, we bring sickness upon our souls, we are made spiritually whole by penance; and by extreme unction we are healed, both spiritually and corporeally, according as our souls have need; by ordination the Church is governed and multiplied spiritually; by matrimony it is materially increased.” Cf. also n. 1325.

27 Poschmann, 219-20, particularly 219: “Plusieurs théologiens comme Hugues de Saint Victor le laisse entendre, hésitaient à considérer la guérison corporelle comme fruit du sacrement et voulaient l’attribuer seulement, comme effet, à la ‘prière de la foi.’

28 Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles 4.73.1.

29 St. Bonaventure, Breviloquium, Pars VI, ch. 11. in Saint Bonaventure, Breviloquium, Partie 6, Les remèdes sacramentels, texte latin de Quaracchi et trad. fr., introd. et notes de Luc Mathieu (Paris: Editions Francisaines, 1967) 117-18: “Elle (= l’Extrême Onction) est le sacrement de ceux qui quittent cette vie. Elle prépare et dispose à la santé parfaite. Elle a aussi la capacité de détruire les péchés véniels et de rendre la santé corporelle (ad recuperandam sanitatem praesentem) si cela est utile au malade (si infirmo expediat).”

30 Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, 4.73.1.

31 Council of Trent, 14th session, November 25, 1551, Denzinger 1667—1719; on the effects of the sacrament n. 1696: “Moreover, the significance and effect of this sacrament are explained in these words: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he he in sins they shall he forgiven him’ (Jas 5:15). For the thing signified is the grace of the Holy Ghost whose anointing takes away the sins if there he any still to be expiated, and also the remains of sin and raises up and strengthens the soul of the sick person by exciting in him great confidence in the divine mercy, supported by which the sick one hears more lightly the miseries and pains of his illness and resists more easily the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel (Gen 3:15); and at times when expedient for the welfare of the soul restores bodily health.”

32 Cl. ‘B. Reicke, “L’onction des malades d’après Saint Jacques,” La Maison Dieu 113 (1973) 50-56; V. Antonov, “La prière et l’onction des malades,” Mémoire présenté en vue de l’obtention de la maîtrise en théologie adventiste, Faculté de théologie adventiste, Collonges sous Salève, 2003 (on website http://www.bibavaucher.net), chap. 3, p. 58f. and bibliography.

33 Cf. J.-Ch. Didier, “L’onction des malades dans la théologie contemporaine,” La Maison Dieu 113 (1973) 57-80, esp. 62-63; the author notes that “ce texte d’Ecriture n’était entré que tardivement—au début du Ve siècle—au service de notre sacrement et que, pendant longtemps, la pratique donna seule l’intelligence du texte et non l’inverse” (62-63); on the question of the institution of the sacraments, cf. P. De Clerck, “Pour un dépassement de la notion d’institution des sacrements. Un essai théologique,” Revue de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 53 (1995) 53-69.

34 3’ Cf. R. Béraudy, “Le sacrement des maladies; étude historique et théologique,” Nouvelle revue théologique 96 (1974) 600-34, esp. 601-4; J. Coppens, “Jacq V,13-15 et l’onction des malades,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 53 (1977) 201-7.

35 Cf. I. Noye, “Maladie,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, 10:137-52, especially columns 138-40; the author notes that “quelques textes en attribuent l’origine à l’Adversaire (Jb 2,7) ou à la Mort (Ps 18,6; Os 13,14)” (col. 138).

36 Noye, “Maladie,” col. 139.

37 “And he rose (egeirô), and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, ‘we never saw anything like this!’ “ (Mark 2:12).

38 Bonaventure wrote the Legenda maior in 1260 after being elected Minister General of the Order in February, 1257.

39 J.-G. Bougerol, “Bonaventure,” Dictionnaire Critique de Théologie, ed. J.-Y. Lacoste (Paris: PUF, 1998) 179-84, here 179.

40 Ibid., 180 referring to H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, vol. I (Paris: 1996) 425.

41 Cf. Gh. Lafont, Promenade en théologie (Paris: Lethielleux, 2003) 72.

42 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, llla, qu. 60: “1° quid sit sacramentum; 2° de necessitate sacramentorum; 3° de effectibus sacramentiorum; 4° de causa eorum; 5° de numero.”

43 Lectura super libros Sententiarum. See J.-G. Bougerol, Introduction à St Bonaventure (Paris: Vrin, 1988). The commentary was written in Paris in the years 1250-1252.

44 Cr. L. Mathieu, Introduction, Bonaventure, Breviloquium, Partie 6, 7-8, who refers to Peter Lombard, Lib. IV Sent., d. I, c. I (II, 745): Samaritanus enim, vulnerato appropians, curationi eius Sacramento rum alligamenta adhihuit, quia contra peccati originalis et actualis vulnera Sacramentorum remedia Deus instituit.

45 Cf. J.-Y. Baziou, “Approche théologique de l’accueil: Le bon samaritain (Lc 10),” on website Aumônerie de l’Enseignement Public, http://aep.cef.fr, where the following are cited: Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 3,17; Origen, Homilies on Luke, 34, 3; Ambrose, Treatise on the Gospel of Luke, 7, 84; Augustine, Discourse on Psalm 31, 7, and Sermon 154, 9, 13. See also J. Daniélou, “Le bon Samaritain,” in Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1956) 457-65.

46 Cf. C. Manhes and J.-P. Deremble, Le Vitrail du Bon Samaritain: Chartres, Sens, Bourges, L’Art de visiter (Paris: Le Centurion-Notre Histoire, 1987); cf. also J.-P. Deremble and C. Deremble-Manhes, Les Vitraux légendaires de Chartres: des récits en images (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1988); C. Deremble-Manhes and J.-P. Deremble, Les vitraux narratifs de la cathédrale de Chartres: étude iconographique, (Paris: Le Léopard d’or, 1993).

47 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, Partie 6, n. 2, 40-41, website http://www.franciscanos.net; cf. D. Van den Eynde, “Les définitions des sacrements pendant la première période de la théologie scolastique (1050-1235),” Antonianum 24 (1949).

48 Cf. the fundamental work of I. Rosier-Catach, La parole efficace: signe, rituel, sacré, Des travaux (Paris: Seuil, 2004) esp. 35-97.

49 Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, 6.19.39; PL 82:255.

50 Hugh of St Victor, De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, 1.9.2-3; PL 176:317-19.

51 Bonaventure, Breviloquium, Partie 6, n. 3, 40-41.

52 Ibid., n. 3, 40-41. On this point, Bonaventure remains rather close to biblical and patristic anthropology.

53 Ibid., n. 3, 40-43.

54 Ibid., n. 4, 42-43.

55 Ibid., n. 6, 44-45.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid., n. 6, 44-45.

58 Ibid.

59 Rituale Romanum: Ordo unctionis infirmorum eorumque pastoralis curae, editio typica (December 7, 1972), Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1972 (hereafter RR); adaptation for the French-speaking: Sacrements pour les malades. Pastorale et célébrations, 1st ed., March 13, 1976; 2nd ed. September 27, 1995 (with the modifications of the Codex luris Canonici of 1983) (Paris: Chalet-Tardy, 1995) (hereafter RF). This Ritual was promulgated by the Constitution Sacram unctionem from Pope Paul VI of November 30, 1972; cf. presentation by P.-M. Gy, “Le nouveau rituel romain des malades,” La Maison Dieu 113 (1973) 29-49.

60 RF, n. 27, p. 35; cf. RR, nn. 42-48, pp. 23-24.

61 RF, n. 57, pp. 54-55; cf. RR, n. 15.

62 Council of Trent, 14th session, November 25, 1551, Doctrine of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, Denzinger n. 1697, and canon 4, n. 1719: “If anyone says that the priests of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests who have been ordained by a bishop, but the elders in each community, and that for this reason a priest only is not the proper minister of extreme unction, let him be anathema.”

63 RF, n. 65, p. 56: “seul le prêtre est le ministre propre de l’Onction des maladies”; see also Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), c. 1003 §I; cf. P.-M. Gy, “La question du ministre de l’onction des malades,” La Maison Dieu 205 (1996) 15-24; B. Sesboüé, “ Les animateurs pastoraux laïcs. Une prospective théologique,” Études, n° 3773, Septembre 1992; Bureau des études doctrinales de la conférence des évêques de France, Les ministères ordonnés dans une Eglise-Communion (Paris: Cerf, 1993).

64 RR, nn. 115-35, pp. 49-56.

65 Cf. K. Rahner, Église et sacrements, Quaestiones disputatae (Paris: DDB, 1970; 1st German ed., 1960); idem, Traité fondamental de la foi (Paris: Centurion, 1983) 447-76; E. Schillebeeckx, Le Christ, sacrement de la rencontre de Dieu, Lex Orandi 31 (Paris: Cerf, 1960); reissued in the series “Foi vivante” (Paris: Cerf, 1997).

66 RF, n. 14, p. 16.

67 II Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 73: “‘Extreme Unction,’ which may also and more fittingly be called ‘Anointing of the Sick,’ is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive the sacrament has certainly already arrived”; and no. 74: “In addition to the separate rites for anointing of the sick and for viaticum, a continuous rite shall be prepared according to which the sick man is anointed after he has made his confession and before he receives viaticum.”

68 Cf. B. Dufour, La pénitence et l’onction des malades, Le nouveau droit ecclésial, Commentaire du Code de Droit Canonique (Paris: Tardy, 1989) 151, who refers to II Vatican Council, Acta synodalia, I, I, pp. 285-86: “Unctio infirmi regulariter locum habeat post Confessionem et ante receptionem Eucharistiae.”

69 II Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, no. I I; cf. Pope Paul VI, Sacram unctionem (November 30, 1972); CCC n. 1499.

70 Cf. Lumen Gentium, no. l0: “Christ the Lord, High Priest taken from among men (cf. Heb 5:1-5) made the new people ‘a kingdom and priests to God the Father’ (Rev 1:6; 5:9-10). The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated as a spiritual house and a holy priest-hood, in order that through all those works which are those of the Christian man they may offer spiritual sacrifices and proclaim the power of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-10). Therefore all the disciples of Christ, persevering in prayer and praising God (cf. Acts 2:42-47), should present themselves as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God (cf. Rom 12:1). Everywhere on earth they must bear witness to Christ and give an answer to those who seek an account of that hope of eternal life which is in them (cf. 1 Pet 3:15).”

71 P-M. Gy, “Le nouveau rituel romain des malades,” 38.

72 Cf. RF, n. 85, p. 61; RR, n. 65, p. 30; the celebration of the sacrament of reconciliation can take place here if it could not be done before.

73 RF, n. 100 bis; RR, n. 239, p. 74 (with quotation of James 5:13-I5).

74 Cf. RF, n. 102, p. 70.

75 RR, n. 73, p. 33.

76 RR, n. 75, pp. 33-34.

77 It comes to replace a kind of exorcism in the old ritual; cf. P.-M. Gy, “Le nouveau rituel romain des malades,” 39.

78 RF, n. 109, p. 72; cf. RR, n. 73, p. 33: Ut ei, cui in tuo nomine manus imponimus, vitam et salutem donare digneris.

79 RF, n. 107, p. 71; n. 114, p. 74; n. 120, p. 78; n. 125, p. 81.

80 Schéma 1: RF, nn. 107-113; schéma 2: RF, nn. 114-17; schéma 3: RF, nn. 120-22 bis; schéma 4: RF, nn. 125-28.

81 RF, n. 14, p. 17.

82 Cf. Ordo benedicendi oleum catechumenorum et infirmorum et conficiendi chrisma (December 3, 1970), n. 20, p. I I; cf. Bénédiction de l’huile des catéchumènes, de l’huile des malades et confection du saint chrême (March 28, 1990), Association épiscopale de liturgie francophone IA.E.L.F.I, 1990.

83 RF, n. III, p. 73: “Dieu notre Père, de qui vient tout réconfort, toi qui as voulu, par ton Fils, guérir nos faiblesses et nos maladies, sois attentif à la prière de notre foi: Envoie du ciel ton Esprit Saint Consolateur sur cette huile que ta création nous procure pour rendre vigueur à nos corps. Qu’elle devienne + par ta bénédiction l’Huile sainte que nous recevons de toi, pour soulager le corps, l’âme et l’esprit des malades qui en recevront l’onction, pour chasser toute douleur, tout mal physique, moral et spirituel. Que cette huile devienne ainsi l’instrument dont tu te sers pour nous donner ta grâce, au non) de Jésus Christ, notre Seigneur, qui règne avec toi pour les siècles des siècles. Amen.” The expression of thanksgiving to be taken when one uses the oil blessed by the bishop is more reserved: it asks to God to express love for the patient and to give him “strength to light for recovery” as well as “health of the body and the spirit”—two expressions that were put in brackets, to mean that one can omit them; cf. RR, n. 75, pp. 33-34. The French version is very close to the Latin but it changed allusion to the olive-tree, rather difficult to translate into French (quam de viridi ligno producere dignatus es) by a more neutral expression: “que ta creation nous procure.”

84 Cf. P.-M. Gy, “Le nouveau rituel romain des malades,” 39, who notes two differences: (I) “l’ importance absolue du baptême par rapport à la bénédiction de l’eau ne se retrouve de la même façon pour l’onction, en ce sens que l’Église ancienne, à Rome et ailleurs, n’a pas eu d’autres paroles sacramentelles de l’onction que celles de la bénédiction de l’huile, celle-ci étant ensuite appliquée aux malades sans formule spéciale”; and (2) “la réservation à l’évêque de la bénédiction de l’huile des maladies” (except in case of necessity).

85 Ibid., 40: “La bénédiction de l’huile Emitte appartient . . . aux textes de première importance de la tradition liturgique romaine, à la fois par son ancien rôle de prière essentielle du sacrement, son insertion comme épiclèse dans le Canon romain, et du fait que sa dépendance par rapport à la Tradition Apostolique d’Hippolyte la place parmi les textes liturgiques romains les plus anciens.” This last point, thanks to the work of M. Metzger and P. Bradshaw, now only has relative value.

86 Ibid.; cf. also note 21, p. 40: “le texte a été révisé d’après les sacramentaires (notamment en ce qui concerne l’énumération corps-âme-esprit).”

87 RR, n. 76, p. 35.

88 RF, n. 129, p. 84.

89 RF, nn. 132-37, pp. 85-87; RR n. 77 and nn. 243-46.

90 RF, n. 133, p. 85.

91 RF, n. 135, p. 86.

92 Lava quod est sordidum, riga quod est aridum, sana quod est saucium/Flecte quod est rigidum, love quod est frigidum, rege quod est devium.

93 P.-M. Gy, “Le nouveau rituel romain des malades,” 39.

94 Cf. Poschmann, 209-10 and 211, where Bede is cited for this private practice (PL 93:39).

95 D. Servan-Schreiber, Guérir le stress, l’anxiété et la dépression sans médicaments ni psychanalyse (Paris: Robert Laffont, Pocket, 2003). D. Servan-Schreiber directed a center of medicine associated with the University of Pittsburgh. The author’s career is described thus: “Après des études demédecine et de psychiatrie, David Servan-Schreiber s’est tourné vers la recherche fondamentale en neurosciences cognitives. Il est ensuite revenu à la pratique clinique tout en poursuivant ses travaux sur la neurobiologie des émotions. Après vingt ans passés au Canada et aux Etats-Unis où il a contribué à fonder puis à diriger le centre de médecine complémentaire de l’université de Pittsburgh, il réside aujourd’hui en France” (ibid., 1); and, “Les idées présentées dans ce livre doivent beaucoup aux travaux d’Antonio Damasio, Daniel Coleman, Tom Lewis, Dean Ornish; Boris Cyrulnik, Judith Hermann, Bessel Van der Kolk, Joseph LeDoux, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Scott Shannon, et bien d’autres médecins et chercheurs” (p. 11).

96 Ibid., 18.

97 Ibid., 22.

98 B. Sesboüé, L’onction des malades, Essais et recherches (Lyon: Faculté de théologie de Fourvière-Lyon, 1972).

99 Ibid., 71-72. For him, the question is important because it is a matter of knowing if the church “must enter the conspiracy of silence on death and be an accomplice to hiding it from view”; and how one can take into account the changes in the conception of illness caused by the medical revolutions of nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

100 Ibid., 72-75: (1) “L’onction doit être normalement donnée à des malades dont l’état n’est pas irréversiblement arrivé au bord de la mort”; (2) “L’onction doit donner lieu à l’intervention fraternelle et aimante de la communauté chrétienne”; (3) “L’onction doit annoncer que le salut chrétien intéresse tout l’homme”; (4) “Pour un sacrement de la conversion du vouloir-vivre humain.”

101 Ibid., 75.

102 C. Ortemann, Le sacrement des malades, 105-16: “(1) L’onction est signe d’une grâce de l’Esprit Saint; (2) L’onction procure le soulagement du malade; (3) L’onction efface les séquelles du péché; (4) L’onction donne le sens de la guérison; (5) Eventuellement l’onction peut remettre les péchés”; cf. R. Béraudy, “Le sacrement des malades, étude historique et théologique,” Nouvelle revue théologique 96 (1974) 600-634.

103 Ortemann, 114.

104 L-M. Régnier, “Les sacrements des malades,” La Maison Dieu 217 (1999) 51-68, who refers to L.-M. Chauvet, Symbole et sacrement, op. cit.

105 Ibid., 52-53.

106 Ibid., 57: “Si l’onction des malades garde son importance première, . . . il doit devenir possible d’inscrire cette épiphanie au coeur d’une multitude de signes susceptibles de rendre compte de la présence de Dieu. En ce sens la sacramentalité investit toute l’existence chrétienne et, de ce fait, tout ce qui concourt à prendre à bras le corps l’humanité de celui qui fait l’expérience de la vulnérabilité peut devenir le lieu même de la présence de Dieu.”

107 Ibid., 59: “II y a certes une relation entre la guérison et le salut, mais le salut c’est un peu la guérison portée à son comble, même si de fait, la plupart du temps, les retrouvailles avec ce qui existait auparavant ne sont plus guère envisageables. Guéri physiquement ou non, le malade peut faire l’expérience d’une vie nouvelle malgré tout, cette dernière pouvant s’appuyer, s’il s’agit d’un croyant, sur l’assurance de la mort et de la résurrection du Christ. Ainsi la vulnérabilité . . . a pu provoquer chez le malade comme une donation de sens à l’existence . . . sorte de seconde naissance. Un peu à la manière de ce que disent certains malades: Etre passé par là, ça m’a sauvé.”

108 Cf. especially the document “Étude de la Mission évangélique unie sur le mouvement charismatique et la guérison” on website WCC: http://www.oikoumene.org.

109 One can, however, call attention to an impressive series of recent publications on the question, which, by reason of their very number, we could not use in this work, especially: R. Dericquebourg, Croire et guérir, Quatre religions de guérison (Paris: Dervy, 2001); idem, Religions de guérison (Paris-Montréal: Cerf/Fides, 1988); R. Massé and J. Benoist, ed., Convocation thérapeutique du religieux (Paris: Karthala, 2002), especially R. Massé, “Les églises fondamentalistes protestantes: les défis pour une anthropologie critique” R. Massé belongs to the research group TIERCES (groupe de recherches Transdisciplinaires sur les Identités, la Responsabilité sociale, les Communautés et la Santé) of Laval University in Québec; C. Javary, La guérison. Quand le salut prend corps (Paris, Cerf, 2004); A. Grün, Petit manuel de la guérison intérieure (Paris, Albin Michel, 2001) ‘links with Easter liturgy; J.-C. Sagne, Quête de Dieu, chemin de guérison (Paris: L’Emmanuel, 2005); and especially B. Forthomme (cf. website: http://www.bernard-forthomme.com ), L’expérience de la guérison, Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond (Paris: Seuil, 2002); idem, Tristesse: Acédie et médecine des rîmes dans la tradition monastique et cartusienne (Paris: Beauchesne, 2005); and idem, “La remédiation aux remèdes: Sur le Christus Medicus,” Annales de Psychologie et des sciences de l’Education 10-11 (1994–1995) 83-106.

 

 


....x....   “”.