In ancient times, olive oil was commonly used for medicinal purposes. It was applied to injuries to hasten the healing process. In Luke 10:25-37, for example, Jesus describes the compassionate Samaritan who pours oil, and wine, on the man who was beaten by robbers and left for dead.

Jesus told those whom he healed that their faith had saved them. One could say his ministry was “faith healing,” but with no pejorative connotations. In the synoptic Gospels, Matthew records fourteen instances of healing by Jesus. Mark records six instances. In Mark 6:13, for example, Jesus sends the disciples out and they anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. Luke, traditionally said to have been a physician, recounts thirteen instances of healing. In John’s Gospel, we find three key healing accounts: the healing of a nobleman’s son who was at the point of death; the healing of a man at the sheep-gate pool in Jerusalem; and the healing of the man born blind.

The ministry of healing was an important ministry in the early Christian communities. In New Testament apostolic letters we find a number of examples. In his letter to the Corinthians, written c. 53 CE, Paul mentions that some members of the community have the gift of healing (1 Corinthians 12:9). In the Epistle of James, traditionally attributed to James the brother of Jesus and written before 62 CE, James gave instructions to the Christian community about the ministry of healing: the elders (presbyters) were to be called and were to pray over the sick person and to anoint the man or woman with oil in the name of the Lord (James 5:14-16).

In a letter from the third century theologian Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220 CE ), he mentions a Christian who cured with blessed oil. There are no other surviving healing texts from the third century. Liturgical documents from the fourth century, however, indicate that the oil blessed for those preparing for baptism was also used for curing spiritual and physical sickness. And there is a prayer for the blessing of oil for strengthening and healing in the early Christian document called “The Apostolic Tradition,” dating most likely from about 375 to 400 CE. The document was once thought to be the work of Hippolytus of Rome, and was dated before 235 CE when Hippolytus is believed to have been martyred.

Up until the eighth century CE, anointing the sick was a widespread practice. It was done by Christian people for their relatives, by men and women with a reputation for healing, and by monks, nuns, and priests. Especially noteworthy, however, is the fact that anointing of the sick remained primarily a lay practice.

Indeed, blessed oil had long been regarded as a substance through which people could be healed. But there had been no official ritual for anointing the sick. That changed in the ninth century.

The blessing of the oil became more solemn and more restricted. It was reserved to the local bishop on Holy Thursday. And the anointing of the sick became a strictly clerical ritual. Most significantly, however, the anointing with blessed oil became an end of life experience, due no doubt to the high mortality rate and the fear of death, at this time.

The sacrament of the sick gradually lost its general healing dimension and became part of the “last rites” before death. Therefore, it came to be called “extreme unction” or “final anointing.” Many people who might otherwise have benefited from the sacrament avoided it or waited until death was imminent before requesting it. It had become indeed a priestly ritual for the dying person.

Reacting to the Protestant Reformation, the sixteenth century Council of Trent stressed that that anointing of the sick is a true sacrament, that it had been established by the historic Jesus, and that it was especially intended for people in danger of death. Trent stressed that only priests were the “proper” ministers of anointing.

The Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965) reclaimed the original meaning of the Sacrament of Anointing that emphasizes the concern and care of the Christian Community and the healing power of Christ. It is intended not just for the end of life but for any time of serious illness or special need. The Council said as well that “extreme unction” should more fittingly be called “anointing of the sick” because by the 1960s it had become clear that the purpose of the sacrament had originally been for the sick and not just for the dying. The bishops at Vatican II also acknowledged – especially noteworthy — that this sacrament was not a strictly clerical ritual until the ninth century.

My contemporary reflections: I very much resonate with the words of my, now deceased, sacramental theologian friend, Joseph Martos: “The only genuine way forward is to look away from ritual and to look instead at what is ritualized, that is, to look at life rather than liturgy and, indeed, to look at the communal lives of people in the church.”

Today we already have communal liturgical rites, in which the theme and focus are healing. I envision anointing rituals performed by ordained and non-ordained ministers/chaplains for people in hospitals, under hospice care or in homes. And more particularly, I would like to see regular informal rituals performed by parish nurses and lay ministers who regularly visit the sick

 

                    Happy Easter 2024.

Easter is our hope and encouragement to live in the Spirit of Christ. To live and act as Jesus did.

In often think about the words of the Christian humanist, Desiderius Erasmus (1466 – 1536) who lived for a few years in Park Abbey very close to where my wife and I live:

“If you just keep thinking about what you want to do or what you hope will happen, you don’t do it, and it won’t happen.”

Jack

PS: I will be away from my computer for two weeks and will return on April 18.

Our understanding of priests, bishops, and deacons has changed dramatically in the church’s long history.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the disciples of Jesus (c. 4 BCE – 30 or 33 CE) understood ther role as one of ministry and service to others. Sent out to spread the Good News of the Way of Jesus, they were called “apostles” from the Greek word apóstolos, meaning “one who is sent out.”

In the earliest Christian communities men and women were apostles. There was a variety of ministries; but ordained priesthood was not one of them. Contrary to what one occasionally hears, the historical Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. In the medieval period, many thought he did. But ordination did not exist in his lifetime.

The letters of Paul, written between 48 and 62 CE, mention a variety of charismatic gifts which can be thought of as ministries benefiting the local Christian community, even though the ministers were not ordained in our sense of the word. For example, members, who could teach, taught. Those who were good organizers administered community affairs. Those who had the gift of prophesy could speak out and tell the community what they needed to hear, as faithful followers in the way of Jesus.

We know as well that men and women who were heads of households presided at the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist); and hosted the gatherings in their homes. In Romans 16, Paul greets women leaders such as the deacon Phoebe, the apostle Junia, and the married apostles Priscilla and her husband Aquila. Clear evidence that women were respected leaders in the emerging Jesus movement.

As Christian communities developed, ministries and the ways of training and appointing ministers evolved to meet changing cultural conditions and changing social needs. Presbyters, from the Greek presbyteroi, were community elders. Supervisor overseers (later called bishops) from the Greek epískopoi had oversight and offered guidance in community affairs, and deacons, from the Greek diaconoi, were helpers, entrusted with assisting people in the community by caring for widows, doing charitable work, catechizing, and assisting in baptisms.

The approval and blessing of the community for diverse ministries was indicated by the laying on of hands. These ministries included preaching, prophesy, healing, working miracles, speaking in tongues, and interpreting what was said in tongues (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-30, Ephesians 4:11-12, Romans 12:4-8; and 1 Corinthians 12:4-11). None of the men and women exercising these ministries were ordained. Acts of Apostles, written between c. 90 and 110 CE, mentions the laying on of hands for elders or presbyters, but here it was a form of blessing for those in ministry. In the Hebrew tradition, the laying on of hands was practiced when a father would impart a blessing to his children (see Genesis 48:14-15). We also see Jesus do this: He lays hands on children and blesses them.

In the first three centuries of Christianity, therefore, we have no direct evidence of what would later be called an ordination ceremony. By the end of the third century, however, Christianity had a clear organizational structure headed by presbyters, supervisor-overseers (bishops), and deacons. Initiation into these orders was accomplished through a rite of ordination that inducted a person into a local office in a particular community.

It is important to clarify that ordination at this time was NOT about passing on some kind of sacramental power. As my former professor the “Dutch theologian” Edward Schillebeeckx once said about liturgical leadership in the past: “You led the liturgy because you were the leader of the people. You didn’t lead the liturgy because you were ordained to have the power of consecration.” Ordination was a blessing on the minister and an assurance to the community that the ordained man or woman was competent, a genuine believer, and trustworthy. There is ample evidence that in the West women were ordained as deacons and abbesses well into the Middle Ages. Women continued to be ordained deacons in the East and were ordained to a variety of ministries. Many contemporary scholars agree with Gary Macy, professor of religious studies at the University of San Diego, who argues that, during the first twelve hundred years of Christianity, women were also ordained as presbyters and bishops. I find the arguments in Macy’s book The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination well-documented and convincing.

It is very important to note, however, that in the 12th century ordination changed from its earlier understanding as a blessing for different ministries in service for a specific community to a bestowal of sacramental power “to confect” (make it happen) the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood. The ordained now belonged as well to a higher social class. The classless and egalitarian church of early Christianity had disappeared. History is important.

The Council of Trent, held in three separate sittings between 1545 and 1563 in Trento in northern Italy, issued several doctrinal pronouncements about ordination, reacting of course to the Protestant Reformation. The Tridentine bishops declared as required Catholic belief that ordination was a sacrament personally instituted by the historic Jesus. The Council of Trent stressed that the sacramental power of ordination was passed on through the tactile laying on of hands, understood as “apostolic succession” going back to Jesus’ “ordination of the apostles as the very first bishops” at the Last Supper. Today we would say that apostolic succession is not about a tactile laying on of hands but about passing on faith, witness, and ministerial leadership from generation to generation.

The Council of Trent stressed as well that ordination brought about an ontological change in the ordained person – a change in the very nature of the person — which elevated the ordained to a level above the laity, leaving an indelible mark on the person forever. The Tridentine bishops emphasized that bishops have the fullest and highest degree of “sacramental power.” They forgot or were ignorant about the fact that the historical Jesus did not exercise power over people but empowered them them to care for others.

Thinking about Trent, one should not forget of course the influence that medieval feudalism still had on the church at that time. There were three estates: the nobility, the clergy, and the peasantry. Bishops, in strongly patriarchal feudalism, held positions of power as feudal lords and as advisers to kings and nobles. Bishops generally lived with the same hierarchical powers, ornate dress, and luxuries as the nobles.

Ordination is a ceremony that celebrates the beginning of a professional life of ministry. It could be much more flexible than it is today and open of course to men and women, married and unmarried, and of whatever sexual orientation. It could be for a specific number of years or life long.

What is celebrated in an ordination ceremony is not getting power over other people or one’s being elevated above the non-ordained. It is about making a commitment and responding to a call to preach the Gospel and care for others. It is about being of service to others, as genuine and credible ministers: helping others grow in and with the Spirit of Christ.

 

Thinking about ordination and pastoral ministry today, I would like to see some creative changes.

• I would like to see ministerial appointments – ordinations — extended to religious educators, youth ministers, pastoral counsellors, social workers, and others, whose faith and competence are well recognized. Perhaps some would only be ordained ministers for just a few years, and then others would carry on their ministry.
• Youth ministers for example could be ministers of confirmation.
• Pastoral counsellors could be ministers of reconciliation.
• Religious educators and youth ministers could preside at small group eucharists.
• Social workers could be ministers of the anointing of the sick during house calls and hospital visits as well as presiders at small group eucharists in residences for the elderly.
• I am sure there are many other creative ministry possibilities.

Jack

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A few friends have written that they miss my comments about contemporary issues. I understand that. But I would strongly suggest that we cannot deal effectively with today’s issues without a correct understanding of what TRULY happened yesterday. Please bear with me. The history of marriage is a good example. And that history is Christian history not just “Roman Catholic history.”]

 

During the first three centuries of Christianity, when Christians married, they did so according to the civil laws of the time, in a traditional family ceremony, and often without any special “church” blessing on their union. There was no liturgical ceremony for marriage, as we saw for Baptism and Eucharist.

The usual marriage custom was that, on the wedding day, the father handed over his daughter to the groom in her own family’s house. The bridal party then walked in procession to her new husband’s house for concluding ceremonies and a wedding feast. The principal part of the ceremony was the handing over of the bride, during which her right hand was placed in the groom’s and the draping of a garland of flowers over the couple to symbolize their happy union. There were no official words that had to be spoken and there was no ecclesiastical ceremony.

In the late fourth century, it became customary in some places in the Eastern Roman Empire for a priest or bishop to give his blessing to the newly wedded couple either during the wedding feast or before it. Priests or bishops were not in charge of, nor did they conduct the ceremony. Their presence was not necessary for the marriage to be valid.

Throughout the seventh century, Christians could still get married in a purely secular ceremony. By the eighth century, however, liturgical weddings had become quite common in the Eastern Empire, and they were usually performed in a church rather than in a home.

In the Western Empire, however, marriage developed along quite different lines.

The first Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne (748 – 814 CE), initiated legal reforms in his empire, in both church and civil government. In 802 Charlemagne passed a law requiring all proposed marriages to be examined for legal restrictions, such as previous marriages or close family relationships, before the wedding could take place. Clandestine marriages were a problem, especially in matters of property ownership. Interestingly, Charlemagne himself had five wives in sequence, numerous concubines, and at least 20 children via his wives and concubines.

By the eleventh century, all marriages in Europe effectively came under the jurisdictional power of the church. It became customary to hold weddings near a church, often in front of the church, so that the newly married couple could go inside immediately afterward to obtain a priest’s blessing. But the priest did not officiate at the wedding. And…it was not until the twelfth century that a church wedding ceremony was conducted by the clergy. But marriage was still not considered a sacrament.

It was also in the eleventh century that celibacy became mandatory for priests in the west. Before that time many priests were married but they were encouraged not to have sexual intercourse with their wives. The last married Pope was Adrian II (pope from 867–872 CE), who was married to Stephania, with whom they had a daughter. There were two big reasons for the imposition of celibacy. First, there was a belief that the historical Jesus was a virgin and that therefore priests should be virgins. But there was a second important reason. Priests’ wives were starting to become too influential and threatened male clerical power in the institutional church.

At the urging of popes and councils, a kind of monastic austerity was gradually forced upon the clergy as a whole. Pope Benedict VIII in 1018 formally forbade priestly marriages. That prohibition was solemnly proclaimed by the First Lateran Council of 1123. The rule, however, was not easy to enforce.

In the thirteenth century, marriage was often viewed by church leaders as a remedy against the desires of the flesh. Many church authorities, like Albert the Great (1200 – 1280), the teacher of Thomas Aquinas (1225 -1274), considered sexual desires themselves if not sinful at best dangerous. Thomas Aquinas stressed that virginity was preferable to marriage. In his Summa Theologiae (sometimes called Summa Theologica) he wrote, “By the example of Christ, who both chose a virgin for his mother and remained himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle [i.e. Paul] who counsels virginity as the greater good.”

By the early thirteenth century, however, marriage came to be viewed as one of the church’s seven official sacraments. This was confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1213, the Council of Florence in 1439, and was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent, meeting off and on from 1545 to 1563. Nevertheless, the bishops at Trent condemned the still ongoing practice of some priests getting married and strongly declared that Catholics had to believe that virginity and celibacy were superior to marriage.

Today many Catholic theologians and canon lawyers say it is better to let the legal regulation of marriage be a matter of civic control, without denying that church weddings are important communal celebrations or that Christian marriages are sacramental. And…marriages are sacramental because two baptized people make a commitment to each other. They are the “ministers of the sacrament.” The priest is an official witness. But what then about two baptized same-sex people who make a marriage commitment to each other? Is not their marriage also sacramental?

Times change. We acquire new knowledge and new insights about our human identity. In many respects we have better biblical and historical perspectives on the past. Our understandings evolve. Accepted patterns of human behavior do change.

My friend, who completed his doctorate in theology in Leuven in 1994, Todd Salzman and his colleague at Creighton University, Michael Lawler, have a new book coming out in May: Pope Francis, Marriage, and Same-Sex Civil Unions.Todd and Michael argue for the organic development of Catholic sexual teaching to recognize the morality and sacramentality of opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

Contemporary pastoral ministry confronts a number of issues and concerns. Some have been resolved in other Christian traditions but remain problematic in the Catholic tradition, because many in church leadership have difficulty understanding that all church doctrines are time-bound and provisional.

The Greek word, agápē, is usually translated as “love” in the New Testament. It really means care or caring. When Jesus tells his followers to love one another, as we read for instance in John 13:34–35, he is telling them to care about each other and to take care of one another.

Jesus never said it mattered if someone was gay, lesbian, trans, or straight. Agápē is not a feeling word. It is an action word. Loving and committed people are bound together in agápē.

Jack

 

 

 

In the New Testament there is no description of a ritual or ceremony associated with Penance or Reconciliation. The only ritual of forgiveness known to the earliest Christian community was Baptism. Today in fact, biblical scholars view just about all the texts that speak of a call to repentance as a call to Baptism, and moral rectitude after Baptism. Penance was seen as part of Baptism. There was no separate sacrament as we have it today.

The early Christians clearly understood that Jesus began his ministry with a call to repentance (Mark 1:15). To those who showed sorrow for their sinfulness he announced that they were forgiven by the power of God (Luke 5:18–26; 7:36–50). When asked how many times people should forgive one another, Jesus said, in effect, “every time.”

By the second century, Bishop Ignatius Theophoros of Antioch (died c. 110) and other second-century bishops continued to speak of personal correction and praying for others as a means of combating sin. Polycarp the Greek bishop of Smyrna (69  – 155) wrote that pastors should be compassionate and merciful to the sheep in Christ’s flock who went astray.

Later in the second century, however, there was a new development. There could only be one penitential reconciliation after Baptism, for the serious sins of apostasy, murder, and adultery. The public sinner would have to confess sins to the bishop. During liturgies,  the public sinner had to sit behind the community and wear penitential clothing. The public sinner was not allowed to stay for Eucharist and had to leave after the Gospel.

By the third century, a general pattern for the public reconciliation of known sinners began to appear in many Christian communities. Those who wanted to rejoin the community went to the bishop and confessed their error. But before they could be readmitted to the ranks of the faithful they had to reform their lives. They had to perform works of repentance, fasting and praying, and giving alms to the poor to show that their repentance was sincere. The period of their penitence could be a few weeks or a few years depending on the penitential customs of their community. In effect serious sinners were thrown out of the community: excommunicated. When their time of penance was over, the bishop imposed his hands on their heads as he had done after their Baptism.

There were extremes in interpretation. The rigorists claimed that excommunication for sins like apostasy and adultery should be permanent.

Penance, by the late fourth and fifth century, became a very public matter. But it was still normally received only once in a lifetime. The majority of Christians, however, felt no need for public penitence. They were not great saints but they were not great sinners either. During this time, therefore, we see a new development especially in Ireland.

Christianity first came to Ireland in the fifth century, around 431 CE. Missionaries, most famously including Saint Patrick, converted the Irish tribes to Christianity. The Celtic practice of Penance became the seeking of private spiritual advice. Devout Christians were encouraged to personally confess their shortcomings to a spiritual “guide” or “physician” who would give them direction in works of prayer and repentance. The person to whom they went, note well, was not necessarily a priest. Confession could be made to a layperson, but was usually to a monk or a nun.

Penitential books containing rules concerning Penance were also first developed by Celtic monks in Ireland in the sixth century. They gave lists of sins and the appropriate penances prescribed for them. They became a type of manual for spiritual guides. The number of penitential books and their importance is often cited as evidence of the particular strictness of Celtic spirituality in the seventh century. Depending on the penitent’s social status, a penance could be harsher or more lenient. For example, if a member of the clergy murdered a person, how long he had to fast depended on his position in the hierarchy. A bishop had to fast for twelve years, a priest or monk had to fast for ten years, and a deacon had to fast for seven years. And no matter the clergyman’s status, they were defrocked.

In the twelfth century, the rules changed. Only priests could listen to the confession of sins. Only priests had the “sacramental power.” But fortunately, people could receive the sacrament of Penance many times during one’s life. The formula that the priest used after hearing a person’s confession changed as well. What had been “May God have mercy on you and forgive you your sins” was changed to “I absolve you from your sins.” Thomas Aquinas, with his limited knowledge of the early centuries of Christian life, mistakenly asserted that the changed formula was in fact an ancient formula.

It was also in the twelfth century that the understanding of “purgatory” developed. Medieval theologians said sins were forgiven but that, after death, sinners’ souls still needed to be cleansed before they could enter heaven. Purgatory was suggested and presumed to be a place of a cleansing or “purgatorial fire,” outside the gates of heaven, to enable the deceased to achieve the holiness necessary for them to enter the joy of heaven.

At the Second Council of Lyon in 1274, the Western Church defined, for the first time, its teaching on purgatory, but the Eastern Orthodox Church did not adopt the doctrine. [Much later, Popes John Paul II (1920 – 2005) and Benedict XVI (1927 – 2022) wrote that the term “purgatory” does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. But neither pope could acknowledge that “purgatory” was simply an imaginative thirteenth century conjecture.]

In any case, it was in the fifteenth century that indulgences — from the Latin verb indulgere meaning “to forgive” or “to be lenient toward” — were introduced as a way to reduce the “days” of purgatorial punishment one had to undergo before entering heaven.

One could get an indulgence for saying special prayers, visiting holy shrines, performing good deeds, and later by contributing money to the church. The main funding for the early stages of building St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, for example, came from the sale of indulgences. The German Dominican friar Johan Tetzel (c.1465 – 1519) gathered indulgence money for the St. Peter’s building project. Although it is now disputed, the old legend was that Tetzel had said: “When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”

When Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521) excommunicated Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) from the Catholic Church in 1520, the bill of excommunication also condemned forty-one of his ideas, including six on indulgences and twelve on penance.

In the mid-16th century, the bishops at the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) stressed private confession to a priest as the approved approach to the sacrament of Penance. In fact, Trent’s bishops – not always historically aware ecclesiastics – stated that private confession dated back to the early days of Christianity. They simply presumed that the historic Jesus had created the sacrament of Penance as they understood it.

The Council of Trent’s medieval conception of sin and its remission through the confession of guilt and the performance of penitential works lasted into modern times because the Catholic Church, for a long time, retained its medieval cultural form, while the world around it changed.

The Roman Catholic approach to Penance began to change after the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965) when the name of the sacrament was changed from Penance to Reconciliation, and the rite allowed for a meeting of priest and penitent that was more like counseling than confession.

How should Christian communities practice Reconciliation today? People do need to acknowledge their sinful behavior and seek forgiveness. But forgiveness also requires reconciliation.

I suggest that at the local parish level, Christian communities should devote resources and personnel to focus on conversion and reconciliation about racism, misogyny, and homophobic discrimination. They should also focus on reconciliation within families: between husbands and wives, between parents and teenagers, between brothers and sisters who are angry with each other, and perhaps even between extended family members.

Sacramental forms and ministers can be adjusted to fit contemporary needs and circumstances. Such a ministry of reconciliation would require specially trained men and women as Ministers of Reconciliation. Then indeed the local Christian community would truly exercise sacraments of Reconciliation.

 

Jack