Anointing of the Sick as a sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Formal Debate-lovernotafighter/Judechild Title: Anointing of the Sick as a sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

Topic: Is the anointing of the Sick a sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace?


Scope: These forum guidelines apply to all Theology Forums.

1: Scope of Discussions: These forums are for the discussion of Christian Theology, Ethics, and History. For the purposes of the Theology forums, discussion is limited to Christian faith and practice as framed in the Nicene Creed. This includes the study of what Christian churches teach and confess, what Christians believe, and what the Bible teaches.

Discussion of non-Nicene beliefs is limited only to discussion from a Nicene point of view for purposes of evangelism.

2: Provide Citations: When quoting material from another site, you must provide a link to your source material for authentication. If quoting from a hard copy then proper citations must also be used. At a minimum the title of the book, magazine, article etc and the name of the author must be posted.

3: Focus on Topics: Discussions should be about doctrines and history, not about other members or their personal faith. Posters who include egregious personal insults and accusations in their posts have their posts edited by moderator staff, and may be issued notices and/or forum specific bans due to them, depending on the seriousness of the flame.

4: Provide Supporting Statements: Posters in Theology are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY if you disagree with each other. When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.

5. Respect Differing Points of Reference: It is expected that people who post in Theology will respect people of faith, including those for whom faith and logic are not contradictions, but complements to one another. To some Christians, arguments from the Bible, from doctrine, and from tradition, are just as valid (and at times more valid) than arguments from logic, reason, science, or history. Whether you are arguing from faith or from logic or some combination thereof, you should respect the other person's point of reference.

6. Accusations of non-Christian doctrine: Stating that another member's church is not Christian is not allowed. However, stating a teaching or belief of another church is not Christian because of X, Y, and Z, is allowed.

7: "Tread Carefully" Topics: Theology posters are expected to understand that accusations of heresy, false doctrine, idolatry, anti-Christ, cult, non-Christian beliefs, antisemitism, etc., are very emotionally laden. They are not conducive to clear discussion. While they are not forbidden in the context of a discussion (with evidence, examples, and/or support), they are discouraged by themselves, as terms of insult. This rule may be referred to as the "tread carefully" rule.

8: Discussion of Historical Figures: Discussion of historical figures important to Christians of many theological backgrounds is a necessary component of theological discourse. Such figures include [but are not limited to]: the Pope, the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, various Church Fathers (e.g., St. Augustine), Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, etc. Such figures are not immune from criticism. However, insults and accusations against these people are not to be posted lightly, and may only be used when accompanied by citation of sources and in the "If X, then Y, because of Z" format. Statements unaccompanied by these requirements will be deemed inflammatory and dealt with appropriately.

9: Report OR Refute, Not Both: When confronted with a post which a member believes to be a violation of the rules, there are two basic options. The member can respond to the post and try to persuade the other member to correct and/or clarify the perceived slight, or they can report the post. Please refrain from both reporting a post, AND responding to it in the thread. Do one, or the other. If it is indeed a violation of the rules, chances are good that it will be edited or deleted, and any responses will either make no sense or will end up deleted in a thread cleanup. Please do not try to "eat your cake and have it, too."

10: Limit quote size: When copying and pasting quotations from other works, limit the size to 20% of the original article, or other work, while providing proper citation as noted above.

Stipulations:

Title: Anointing of the Sick as a sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

Topic: Is the anointing of the Sick a sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace?

1. Negative: lovernotafighter; Affirmative: judechild.
2. There will be 3 rounds.
3. Alternating. lovernotafighter will be the first to post.
4. N/A
5. Time limit between posts will be One week.
6. Length of each post will be no longer than 2000 words.
   
7. Sources other than Scripture are allowed to be used as evidence and debate material. Note: *Debate must remain within discussion of the theme set fourth in the Topic.*
8. The debate may begin immediatly.

Please click here for link to the peanut gallery thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7457681/Peanut Gallery: Formal Debate-Anointing of the Sick.

 

[lovernotafighter]

Hello
Let's get started, shall we?

First, we need to establish the definition of a sacrament.
A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.

So, the three parts necessary for a sacrament are
-Outward sign
-Instituted by Christ
-To give grace

Part 1: An outward sign

I see no objection to this claim, it is certainly an outward sign as established in James 5:14-15 [BIBLE]14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.[/BIBLE]

Part 2: Instituted by Christ

Evidence cited from Scripture

Most people will cite the above verse as a claim it was instituted by Christ. This is not so. It is certainly a good thing to pray for the sick and anoint him, but this is instituted by James, not Christ, and James can't make a sacrament.

Additionally, people commonly cite Mark 6:12-13. [BIBLE] 12 They went out and preached that people should repent. 13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.[/BIBLE]

Looking at this passage by itself, one might conclude this was instituted by Christ, but let's look at the earlier parts of Mark 6.

[BIBLE] 8 These were [Jesus's] instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9 Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10 Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."[/BIBLE]

Where does He say "Anoint the sick with oil and pray for them"? And where does He make this hypothetical command a sacrament?

Part 3: To give grace

Where does anyone say that Anointing of the Sick gives grace?
Healing is not the same as grace.


God bless, I look forward to this debate

 

[judechild]

“Jesus heard this and said to them that ‘Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do” (Mk 2:17).

Thank you, lovernotafighter, for the opportunity to discuss this topic; thanks also to the board and the moderating staff. I hope this will be a fruitful experience for all involved. Electronic versions of outside sources are listed in the post-script.

Jesus is the Divine Healer; He is the Physician spoken of in the above verse. He, Himself, is so close to those who are suffering from sickness that He identifies with them: “I was sick and you visited me” (Mt. 25:36). The Catholic Church believes that this Christ who “took our infirmities and bore our diseases” (Mt. 18:17) intends that Grace be communicated to the infirm in a special Sacramental fashion through the Anointing of the Sick. This Sacrament is apparent in Scripture, and it goes to the basis of the relationship between body and soul; it also demonstrates what it means to truly do a thing “in the Name of the Lord” (James 5:14).

I am glad that L has a good grasp on the topics that must be debated. He has separated out the definition of Sacrament into its three parts, and we of course do not need to discuss the first part. We do, however, suffer from a lack of clarity of terms. In his objection to the third part, L states “healing is not the same as grace;” this leads me to wonder how he defines “grace.” For the Catholic, grace is defined as:

The free and undeserved gift that God gives us to respond to His call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the Divine Nature and of eternal life – (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1996).

Looking at the many healings of Jesus, one must wonder that if they are not graces: what, then, are they? In John 9, Jesus “saw a man blind from birth.” After rubbing mud on the man’s eyes, and telling him to wash in the Pool of Siloam, he “came back able to see” (v. 7). Because of this healing, the man becomes a disciple of Jesus: “’I do believe, Lord,’ and he worshiped Him” (v. 38). In this, we see all the defining features of grace: it is free; it is undeserved (after all, the Pharisees were correct to say that he, like they, were “totally in sin” – v. 34); and it allowed him to respond to Jesus’ call to follow Him: “do you [Pharisees] want to become his disciples, too?” (v. 27).

I doubt that L is saying that healing is not a grace; he more likely disagrees only that a certain type of grace is communicated through healing: sanctifying grace. This type of grace is:

The gratuitous gift that God makes to us of His own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. – CCC 1999).

It is clear from Jesus’ healings that along with the grace of bodily rejuvenation also comes this grace of sanctification. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus is teaching at his house in Capernaum when the roof is torn off and a paralytic is lowered down in front of Him. Ignoring the fact that the insurance company will likely not count this as vandalism, he says to the man “’Child, your sins are forgiven” (v. 5). He then heals the man’s body as well: “He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone” (v. 12). The body-soul dualism is more explicit in the preceding miracle (Mk. 1:40-45) where Jesus, “moved with pity,” says to him “Be made clean.” It is clear that it was a physical healing (v. 44), but there is a wonderful ambiguity about the implications of being “made clean.”

This dualism is picked up in James 5. In verse 15, because of the anointing that is performed – this “prayer of faith” – “the Lord will raise [the sick person] up.” This is the grace of physical healing; the body and the soul are part of the same person, however, “if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.” These are two of the graces given through the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. It is true that for reasons known only to Him, not everyone experiences total physical healing (see Paul’s illness in Galatians 4:13), but the Grace of God is still there.

Healing is a grace, as is the forgiveness of sins; these graces occur in James 5 through the Anointing of the Sick, and therefore this anointing is “an outward sign … that gives grace.”

As regards L’s treatment of the second part of the requirement for a Sacrament - “Instituted by Christ” – he objects to Mark 6 being used to support the Sacrament: “Where does He say ‘Anoint the sick with oil and pray for them’?” I would like to point out that the longer version of Jesus’ speech is recorded in Matthew 10, where He does indeed say “Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers…” But that really is irrelevant because I agree with him; Mark 6 does not refer to the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. L simply uses the “wrong” objection. Mark 6 is not the Sacrament for a number of reasons; among them is that the people anointed had likely not received baptism. This is why the Council of Trent claims somewhat cautiously that the Anointing is only: “being insinuated indeed in Mark 6:13” (session XIV, Sub-session 2, Ch. 1). The anointing in Mark is seen as a preparatory rite for the Sacramental Anointing – as John’s baptism was a preparation of Jesus’.

Another place that the Anointing is “insinuated” is in Isaiah 38:1-8 (and in its compliment 2 Kings 20). “In those days, when Hezekiah was mortally ill, the prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, came and said to him: ‘Thus sys the Lord: Put your house in order, for you are about to die; you shall not recover” (v. 1). Hezekiah whines for a bit, and then God decides in verse 5: “I will heal you: in three days you shall go up to the Lord’s temple; I will add fifteen years to your life.” The solution given is that Isaiah takes “a poultice of figs” and “[applies it] to the boil, that he might recover” (v. 21). Hezekiah’s song afterwards is to say “You have preserved my life from the pit of destruction, when you cast behind your back all my sins” (v. 17).

It is James 5 that we should pay the most attention to. Here again, we suffer from the problem of not having our terms defined; this time, I ask what L means by Christ “instituting” a thing. The Second Vatican Council says of Scripture:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation (Dei Verbum, 11)

Therefore, the Catholic sees within “he should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14) a command from Christ Himself, not only from James. If Christ has not instituted this Anointing, simply because there are no words attributed to Him saying it verbally, we must wonder if anything – including Scripture – has been instituted by Christ.

Another point for discussion is what it means to “pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.” In another place, the Apostles are commanded to baptize “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28:19), but Peter tells the crowd to “be baptized… in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38). Jesus Himself says “in my Name they will drive out demons… they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mk. 16:17-18). To do these things “in the name of the Lord,” means to do them on the Authority of the One who sent them (“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations”); this One has given them His own power because of the union Christ has to His Church (“Whoever hears you hears me” and Ephesians 5:21-33). Just as Jesus did everything by the Authority and Approval of His Father (Jn. 10:25), so now has He sent His Apostles out, to act by His Own Authority and Approval (“’As the Father has sent me, so I send you” – Jn. 20:21). Thus, the passage in James 5 tells the Presbyters to “pray over him and anoint him with oil by the authority and approval of the Lord. James is communicating something that had been demanded by Christ, and therefore, the Anointing of the Sick is instituted by Christ.

The Anointing of the Sick is God’s loving Fatherhood for the sick. Oil is a medicinal substance, and so it is appropriate that Christ would establish an anointing with oil as the outward communication of His Grace to the suffering person. Through the Anointing, the sick person receives several graces, and also is brought into closer union with Jesus – Whom was Himself anointed before His death in Mt. 26:6-13. For these reasons, we believe in the efficacious nature of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dei Verbum
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Council of Trent, Session XIV

 

[lovernotafighter]

I would like to apologize. I'm getting grounded from my computer for an indefinite amount of time so I am unsure if I can make the 7 day deadline. Please excuse my absence and grant me an extension. God bless.

 

[lovernotafighter]

You can disregard that last post, I didn't get grounded after all
Back to the debate, then.

“Jesus heard this and said to them that ‘Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do” (Mk 2:17).

Thank you, lovernotafighter, for the opportunity to discuss this topic; thanks also to the board and the moderating staff. I hope this will be a fruitful experience for all involved. Electronic versions of outside sources are listed in the post-script.

Jesus is the Divine Healer; He is the Physician spoken of in the above verse.

I would disagree. Jesus is talking about people who are physically sick and need a physical doctor. Not that He couldn't heal them, but He's not talking about Himself there.

He, Himself, is so close to those who are suffering from sickness that He identifies with them: “I was sick and you visited me” (Mt. 25:36). The Catholic Church believes that this Christ who “took our infirmities and bore our diseases” (Mt. 18:17) intends that Grace be communicated to the infirm in a special Sacramental fashion through the Anointing of the Sick. This Sacrament is apparent in Scripture, and it goes to the basis of the relationship between body and soul; it also demonstrates what it means to truly do a thing “in the Name of the Lord” (James 5:14).

He also identifies with the naked and the thirsty. Is clothing the naked or giving drink to the thirsty a sacrament? Why should this one get singled out to give grace? And many things are done "in the name of the Lord" Jesus tells the apostles to drive out demons in His name, I can't remember where though. Is driving out demons a sacrament? Certainly not.

It is clear from Jesus’ healings that along with the grace of bodily rejuvenation also comes this grace of sanctification. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus is teaching at his house in Capernaum when the roof is torn off and a paralytic is lowered down in front of Him. Ignoring the fact that the insurance company will likely not count this as vandalism, he says to the man “’Child, your sins are forgiven” (v. 5). He then heals the man’s body as well: “He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone” (v. 12). The body-soul dualism is more explicit in the preceding miracle (Mk. 1:40-45) where Jesus, “moved with pity,” says to him “Be made clean.” It is clear that it was a physical healing (v. 44), but there is a wonderful ambiguity about the implications of being “made clean.”

This dualism is picked up in James 5. In verse 15, because of the anointing that is performed – this “prayer of faith” – “the Lord will raise [the sick person] up.” This is the grace of physical healing; the body and the soul are part of the same person, however, “if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.” These are two of the graces given through the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. It is true that for reasons known only to Him, not everyone experiences total physical healing (see Paul’s illness in Galatians 4:13), but the Grace of God is still there.

You're right, I meant sanctifying grace. Should have been more specific, sorry. From Catholic Encyclopedia:

Sanctifying grace is "a quality strictly supernatural, inherent in the soul as a habitus, by which we are made to participate in the divine nature".

The forgiveness of sins and the healing here are separate graces. It is not a "2 for 1". The forgiveness of sins is the same type of grace as Holy Absolution, the healing is the type given in Jesus's healings.

Another place that the Anointing is “insinuated” is in Isaiah 38:1-8 (and in its compliment 2 Kings 20).

That's a pretty big stretch...

Therefore, the Catholic sees within “he should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14) a command from Christ Himself, not only from James. If Christ has not instituted this Anointing, simply because there are no words attributed to Him saying it verbally, we must wonder if anything – including Scripture – has been instituted by Christ.

He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29, 31. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan! The O.T. Scriptures were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4; Luke 16:29, 31. He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24, 29–31; Luke 18:20.

Christ quite clearly instituted Scripture. IMO, these are some of the most obvious, but there is a whole list. a.n.s.w.e.r.s.i.n.g.e.n.e.s.i.s.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp

You say that Christ instituting something does not mean He had to directly say it. I say otherwise. We have just 2 sacraments, Baptism and Communion, because Christ VERY CLEARLY instituted these, and there is loads about them in the Scriptures. Obviously, they are some of the most important things that Jesus really wanted us to do!
Other things instituted by Christ, such as Confession, are not seen as sacrament per-se for various reasons. They are instead seen as non-sacramental rites, and are important, but not as important.

God bless.

 

[judechild]

“Heal the sick!” (Mt. 10:8).

Some Christians seem to make better angels than they do humans; they believe that they cannot or are not spiritually affected by physical things – as though they are pure spirits without any need for a body - and hence they reject all Sacraments. I am glad that L is not one of them. He agrees that Baptism and the Eucharist are Sacraments; hopefully, one more can be added to his list shortly.

The reason for my hope is that L has already satisfied one of his two challenges. He says “the forgiveness of sins and the healing here are separate graces.” I agree, but will return to the implications later. He also says “the healing is the type given in Jesus’ healings.” True; and therefore L and I agree that Christ gives grace through the Anointing of the Sick. By acknowledging that healing is a grace (another consensus I am happy to see us come to) and healing can come through the Anointing, we have agreed that the Anointing “gives grace.” The type of grace is irrelevant in the context of this debate, because the question L posed is: “Where does anyone say that Anointing of the Sick gives grace?” My answer today is “in your last post, you do.”

If my only concern was for the debate, I would end the discussion on grace here. The truth is, though, that I care more for you, L, than I do for the debate. So, I will attempt to respond to your objections on sanctifying grace as well.

It is my belief that the Anointing communicates sanctifying grace. As L did not answer the Scripture I gave before, I will propose it again. In Mark 1:40-45, Jesus is approached by a leper; the man “begged Him” to “’make me clean’” (v. 40). Jesus does heal the man, “and he was made clean” (v. 42). I would suggest that this is not a physical healing only (v. 42), but also a spiritual one; the man’s sins were also forgiven. I suggest this because in no place in the Gospels (to my knowledge) does Jesus heal arbitrarily; He always does so to bring the person closer to Him, or for the person’s soul. So, Jesus heals Simon’s Mother-in-Law not because He is seeking a display of His power, or even only to alleviate human suffering, but because He is calling her to serve Him; “He approached, grasped her hand, and helped her up. Then the fever left her and she waited on them” (1:31).

Physical healing is also a sign of the forgiveness of sins. Jesus forgave the paralytic’s sins: “child, your sins are forgiven” (Mk. 2:5), and afterwards He reveals the sign of that forgiveness: “’But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth’ / He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home” (v. 10-11). In James 5, we see both the physical healing: “the Lord will raise Him up,” and the forgiveness of sins: “if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.” The former being a sign of the latter, it is clear that whether we consider “the forgiveness of sins and the healing [as] separate graces” or not is irrelevant; whether it is a “2 for 1” or two different actions, the effects of the Anointing are the same: physical healing and the forgiveness of sins.

The forgiveness of sins, of course, is a sanctifying grace; it is, as quoted before: “[a] gratuitous gift that God makes to us of His own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.” Therefore, we know that sanctifying Grace comes through the Anointing; to a point, even Luther agrees: “We do not deny, therefore, that forgiveness and peace are granted through extreme unction” (Luther’s Works 36:119). I do not agree with the reason Luther gives for why this is, but at least we have that much common ground.

The body and the soul are elements of the same person, so we shouldn’t be surprised when God heals the body for the sake of the soul, and vice-versa. Even in L’s near-grounding we can see this point illustrated. For whatever reason, L’s body (extended to the internet) would have been contained, and this would have affected his ability to interact with us; in the same way, when the body is prevented from its normal functioning by disease, some may be less able to seek/interact with God (of course, others do find God in their sickness, and so it is up to the wisdom of God what is to be done). Physical healing is a liberation of the body; forgiveness of sins is a liberation of the soul.

Moving on, I can see that L has attempted to put in a new clause in our definition of “Sacrament;” this is the word “clearly” so that the phrase is “a physical sign, clearly established by Christ.” The trouble is, L is not consistent with its use.

L says “You say that Christ instituting something does not mean He had to directly say it. I say otherwise.” I would like to point out that that is not quite what I said; I said “simply because there are no words attributed to Him saying it verbally.” That is to say, He may have, but it’s not in the written Gospels; after all, “there are also many other things that Jesus did” that are not written in down (Jn. 21:25). Maybe L will say that these things He did are not as important, because even some of the things He did that are written down are “not as important” as others. Anyway, I’m not necessarily saying Jesus didn’t “directly say it.”

The trouble with consistency comes from his quoted source. L believes that Scripture was clearly instituted by Christ; I agree that it is instituted by Him, but disagree that it was clear.


Answers in Genesis has a list of many reasons why Christ valued Scripture, and why it is authoritative, and most of them I agree with. Yet, the Sadducees had many debates with Him, and He never brought up their adherence to only the five books of the Torah; the only reason the Sadducees’ tiny Canon of Scripture died out was because they were effectively annihilated during the Jewish War in 90 AD, leading to the dominance of the Pharisees with their 39 book canon. Jesus did not make the Canon (the institution, if you will) of Scripture clear. Referring to the Anointing L asks where Jesus “[makes] this hypothetical command a sacrament,” but does not ask “where does Jesus institute the canon of Scripture?”

There is a larger problem. In paragraph 11, Answers in Genesis says: “The apostles’ words had the same authority as Christ’s,” and it cites Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27; 16:12–14. Yet, L does not believe this; his fundamental objection to the statement “the Anointing is instituted by Christ” is “this is instituted by James, not Christ, and James can't make a sacrament.” I point out again that James probably didn’t come up with this Anointing out of a vacuum, but even if James was the first one to do it: do his words have the same authority as Christ’s?

It is my understanding that, in order to hold consistency, L will have to deny that James’ words have the same authority as Christ’s, or else he will have to admit that the Anointing is a Sacrament “instituted by Christ” because “whoever hears you hears Me” (Lk. 10:16). But he cannot say that without calling into question the clarity of Scripture because who is going to say that the words of James are authoritative, if he does not in fact speak on behalf of Christ?

Finally, to L’s objections at: “Is clothing the naked or giving drink to the thirsty a sacrament?” and “Jesus tells the apostles to drive out demons in His name, I can't remember where though. Is driving out demons a sacrament?” I answer “what if they are?” This debate is not about how many Sacraments there are, and whether or not exorcism is a Sacrament does not affect whether the Anointing of the Sick is. L laid out the debate parameters in his first post: outward sign; instituted by Christ; to give grace. I have provided my interpretation of the phrase “In the Name of the Lord;” I would like L to give his, if he is to tell me I am wrong.

And with that, I believe I have said all that I can say at this time. Christ is close to the suffering because He Himself suffered (Lk. 22:44). The greatest suffering occurs as a person nears death (Ps 88:4), and so Jesus gives His Grace all the more. The Anointing of the Sick is the greatest instrument of this Grace to the ill, which is promulgated by James, and insinuated by Mark; God grant that I may die with this Anointing.

 

[lovernotafighter]

Hi again.

You say Jesus does not heal for merely physical purposes? What about the 10 lepers in Luke 17? Only one came back to give thanks. Were the others not healed? Also, their sins are not forgiven. Physical healing is not always equated with forgiveness of sins.

Your bringing up John 21 is interesting. If Jesus had said something about it, don't you think it would have been mentioned even once? The Bible is just full of references to Baptism and the Eucharist, Jesus even participated in them! I think this was to show us how important they were, because obviously he didn't need either.

Yes, the apostles words do have the same authority as Christ. But they are different people, surely! Picture the Trinity. Each one has equal authority, none is superior to the others. But they are not the same. I would argue that if God the Father instituted something it still wouldn't be a sacrament, we would have to call it something else. That does not mean it isn't important, however.

And you are also correct in your definition of "in the name of the Lord".

Another thing I would think is defining of a Sacrament is that it is (normally, unless invincible ignorance is a factor) necessary for salvation.

See John 3: 3-7

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.'

And John 6 53-59

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Have a nice day.

 

[judechild]

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have Mercy on us and on the whole world.

I’d like to again thank the board and the staff for hosting this debate, and to all who have been observing and giving feedback. Thank you, of course, especially to my debating partner, lovernotafighter; I’m very sorry that I failed convincing you that the Anointing of the Sick is a Sacrament.

In his last post, L gave me a surprise: he has changed the definition of “Sacrament” again. In his second post, L and I agreed that the Anointing gives grace – whether or not of the “type” L currently disputes. Now, in his final post, he has for all practical purposes agreed that the Anointing is instituted by Christ; I will explain more fully later. In response to these, L also narrowed the definition of Sacrament with each post, so that it is now “An outward sign, very clearly instituted by Christ to give Grace which is necessary for Salvation;” it is 77% longer now than it was at the beginning.

In his first post, L says:

“So, the three parts necessary for a sacrament are
-Outward sign
-Instituted by Christ
-To give grace”

It was L himself who made these the topics for debate (“we need to establish the definition of a sacrament” – L, post 1). He then, in his second post, restricted the definition to those actions which are instituted “very clearly” (“We have just 2 sacraments, Baptism and Communion, because Christ VERY CLEARLY instituted these” – L, post 2). Most recently, almost as an afterthought, he states “another thing I would think is defining of a Sacrament is that it is (normally, unless invincible ignorance is a factor) necessary for salvation” (3).

The most recent amendment is rather arbitrary in that it attempts to cut off the past discussion by changing the debate. With this new part, L can dismiss Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Confirmation; but even if, causa disputandi, we accepted this new part, it would also approve of the Anointing as a Sacrament. The reason for this becomes clear in James 5. Verse 15 says of the sick person “if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.” It is necessary for this sick person’s salvation that he be forgiven of these sins; and he will be forgiven by, as L says, “the same type of grace as Holy Absolution” (L, post 2).

Of course, someone may dispute that the person’s sins need to be forgiven, but that is not the Catholic view; the Catholic believes Jesus came because we are sinners: “just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned” (Rom 5:12), and that all are given salvation “by the forgiveness of their sins” (Lk 1:77). I know L believes these things also, and so he must admit that for the sick person in James 5, the Anointing is necessary for his salvation.

Whether or not L is willing to admit that, though, isn’t important, because “necessary for salvation” is not part of our agreed-upon definition. I think I may know now what Pluto said when it was told it’s not to be called a planet any longer: “but nothing about me has changed!” Similarly, L changing the definition does not change anything about the Anointing.

And so we return to one of the points we have been debating. L does not believe the grace communicated by the Anointing is or includes sanctifying grace; I have given quite a few examples to show that it is, and these have not been challenged by L. Instead, he brings up the ten lepers in Luke 17 and says “only one came back to give thanks.” True, only one did, and that one was a Samaritan (not one of us!) but it really doesn’t surprise me. After all, I do the same thing. All the graces God gives me that I don’t really ever bother to return and thank Him for… but that doesn’t mean God didn’t really give me the grace to begin with.

L also says “Also, their sins are not forgiven.” I’m afraid I cannot judge peoples’ souls as well as L can, but there is that same wonderful ambiguity in the term “they were cleansed” (Lk 17:14) as there is in Mark 1. When I look at the Gospels, and see Jesus’ healings, I do not think ‘what a nice thing Jesus did;’ I see a sign of a greater work: the healing of the soul. The disciples asked Jesus whether the man in John 9 was blind because he had sinned, or because of his parents, and Jesus responded “neither… it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him” (v. 3). Can I see the healing of the soul? No. But can I see (is it “made visible”) the healing of the body? Yes, I can do that. The healing of the body is a sign of the healing of the soul.

Without meaning to, L cuts Jesus short. When He asks the scribes “which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘rise, pick up your mat and walk’?” (Mk 2:9). The answer should be obvious: it is harder to truly say “your sins are forgiven.” After all, any old prophet can heal (Isaiah does in 38:21; as does Tobiah in Tobit 11), but “who but God alone can forgive sins?” (Mk 2:7). L says that Jesus is fine with the lesser, rather than the greater, when he says “Physical healing is not always equated with forgiveness of sins.” Maybe not all healing is, but certainly all Jesus’ are; He is the one who says that he heals “that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth” (2:10).

Jesus certainly, then, communicates sanctifying grace through the Anointing. All that remains is to show that He has instituted it.

I am glad that L agrees that “in the Name of the Lord” means “by the authority and approval of the Lord.” Since we agree on this point, and that the Apostle James’ words have the same authority as Christ’s, we are so close to agreement that there is no practical difference; I say “instituted” and L says “established by the authority and approval of the Lord through one appointed to speak for Him.” His objection by appealing to the Trinity is really not relevant; after all, how do we know which actions are performed by which Person? Does the Father save; or does the Son; or does the Holy Spirit? Do all three work in unison? Is it proper then to say that Christ, alone, has established His Sacraments? This gets into questions that I do not know how to answer. Maybe L does, but I certainly do not.

As to another of L’s objections: “If Jesus had said something about it, don't you think it would have been mentioned even once?” I can only point out that I was not consulted prior to publishing. I suppose anytime would have been a good time to write that Jesus had said “and so gather all these things that you’ve heard and seen into one volume and submit it to Liturgical Press” but again, I was not consulted. L seems to have no problem believing the New Testament is established by Christ, even though not a single word was written by Him; it seems to me to be a double-standard, then, to downplay the Anointing, calling it “important, but not as important” as other things because the Gospels do not explicitly mention Jesus describing the rite, and giving each Apostle a little vile of oil.

To review: Jesus may have talked a lot about Baptism and the Eucharist, but He, Himself, rarely did either before His death: (Jn. 4:2; Lk 22:19). He did heal the sick quite a lot, though: Mt. 4:23, 8:1-4; Mk. 1:32-34, 40-45; Lk. 7:1-10, 14:1-6; Jn. 5:1-18, 9:1-41… so it is clear that Jesus participated in the healing of people’s bodies and souls; the Apostles have been sent to do the same in His Name: “as the Father has sent me, so I send you… whose sins you forgive are forgiven” (Jn. 20:21-22). One way that the Apostles carry this ministry of forgiveness out is through the Anointing of the Sick.

What is Anointing? It is a sign that marks us for who we are, and Who we belong to. My first anointing was at my Baptism, when the oil rubbed on my head was a sign of me being set apart by God as One of His family, and therefore a kind of Royalty (see 1 Samuel 10:1). When I was confirmed, this sign was repeated; this time emphasizing that I am also priest (see Exodus 29:7) and prophet (see 1 Kings 19:16). This does not decrease over time; as death approaches, it is important to remind us of these previous Anointings with one more. If it is God’s Will to heal the body of the person who is Anointed, that is glorious, but we have it on the word of God Himself, speaking through James, that the person’s sins will certainly be forgiven through it. Plus, if I willingly chose not to be Anointed, I have a feeling I will have a hard time explaining to God that I didn’t think it was “as important” that I be anointed.

You are my opposite, L; you have converted away from the Catholic Church, and I have converted to her. I wish you the best, and I do hope that you will one day return to Catholicism. No matter what happens in the future, please know that I will pray for you, and I hope that you will pray for me.

“To the one who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you unblemished and exultant, in the presence of His glory, to the only God, our savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord be glory, majesty, power, and authority from ages past, now, and for ages to come. Amen” (Jude 24-25).