Q. Why does the priest anoint the hands of a person when administering the Anointing of the Sick? — A.L., Massachusetts.
A. In the old days, when the sacrament was known as Extreme Unction, the priest anointed all the bodily senses because it is through these senses that we commit sins. How many sins are due to a misuse of the eyes, the ears, the mouth, the hands, and the feet? During the anointing, the priest prayed that God would forgive any sins due to each sense.
When the rite was revised in 1972, and the name changed to the Anointing of the Sick, indicating that it should be conferred not just on the dying but also on any baptized person who begins to be in danger of death because of illness or old age, it was simplified to involve anointing with oil only of the forehead and the hands of the person.
Q. In reading the Gospel of Luke on Palm Sunday, I noticed that after King Herod sent Jesus back to Pontius Pilate, Luke says that “Herod and Pilate became friends that very day, even though they had been enemies formerly” (23:12). What does this mean? — M.E.P., Maryland.
A. From what we can discover, Pilate at some point in the past had had some Galileans, who were subjects of Herod, killed while they were offering sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem. This slaughter of Herod’s subjects may have precipitated the hostility with Pilate. Also, there is some evidence that Herod had acted as a spy for the Emperor Tiberias among the Roman officials in Palestine and sent reports to Rome. Furthermore, there was an incident where Pilate had shields bearing the emperor’s name placed on the outside of Herod’s palace in Jerusalem. When a delegation sent to Pilate did not persuade the governor to have the shields removed, the Jews appealed to Tiberius himself, and the emperor ordered them removed and transferred to the Temple of Augustus in Caesarea.
So when Pilate sent Jesus to Herod for judgment because Jesus was a Galilean, that sign of deference to Herod apparently ended the hostility between the two men.
Q. The Council of Trent declared that those who believed in reception of the Precious Blood at Mass should be held anathema. Today the Church allows extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion only when they are necessary. According to Trent, they are never necessary. So it would seem that those who provide them are heretics. — R.G., Texas.
A. In his book Mass Revision, Jimmy Akin offered these comments on the history of Communion under both kinds:
“In the early Church, it was common for the faithful to receive the Eucharist under the form of wine as well as under the form of bread (i.e., ‘under both kinds’). For example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem states:
“ ‘Then, after thou hast partaken of the body of Christ, draw near also to the cup of his blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow thyself by partaking also of the blood of Christ.’
“There were also many cases in the early Church where Communion was received only under the form of bread. In part, this was because it was often hard to hold celebrations of the liturgy. Receiving Communion under the form of bread allowed Christians to reserve the host in their houses and receive daily Communion even when celebrations of the liturgy were not possible on a daily basis. Communion under one kind became the normal practice in many places by the late Middle Ages. When the Protestant reformers began to separate from communion with the Church, they often protested against the reception of Communion only under one kind, just as they protested against the use of Latin as a liturgical language.
“In response, the Council of Trent protected the historical Christian teaching that Communion under one kind was valid by maintaining the standard practice whereby most people received Communion under one kind. By the twentieth century, things had changed, and there was no movement within the Catholic Church denying the validity of Communion under only one kind. Thus the Second Vatican Council allowed for a greater use of Communion under both kinds” (pp. 194-195).
Akin brought the history up to the present time by quoting the following from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
“The Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since nowadays the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of Eucharistic Communion received under the species of bread alone are not in any way called into question, the Council gave permission for the reception on occasion of Communion under both kinds because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity for understanding more deeply the mystery in which the faithful participate” (n. 14).
The GIRM also said that pastors are to instruct the faithful that “Christ, whole and entire, and the true sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation.”
Furthermore, the GIRM said, pastors are to teach “that the Church, in her stewardship of the sacraments, has the power to set forth or alter whatever provisions, apart from the substance of the sacraments, that she judges to be most conducive to the veneration of the sacraments and the well-being of the recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places” (n. 282).
Thus one council of the Church, without altering the substance of a sacrament, can change the manner in which the sacrament is received “in view of changing conditions, times, and places.” This is not a change in dogma, but a change in discipline. The Council of Trent did not envision lay distribution of the Holy Eucharist, so the use of extraordinary ministers today is not heretical. Granted, in some parishes they are being overused, that is, they are being used in ordinary situations where they are not necessary, and the Church has addressed this.
In 2002, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued a document entitled Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds. Among other things, that document said that “in practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice” (n. 24). Intinction means dipping the Host into the Precious Blood and then giving it to the communicant.
In other words, making Communion available under both species does not necessarily justify an increase in EMs if that would obscure the role of the priest and deacon. This dilemma can be avoided either by not having Communion under both kinds or by using intinction.
Q. Being that the human body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, to what degree is tattooing a sin? — R.M.V., Texas.
A. Since we are obligated to take care of our bodies, and not do anything to harm them, tattooing ought to be ruled out because it might make them vulnerable to disease. Also, it would be sinful to have obscene words or pictures inked onto our bodies. We should follow the advice in the Book of Leviticus (19:28): “Do not lacerate your bodies for the dead, and do not tattoo yourselves. I am the Lord.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress