Catechism Of the Crisis In the Church
PART 27
This part of the Catechism deals with the rite of extreme unction and with a final consideration of the sacraments in the new rite taken together.
Was the rite of extreme unction also altered?
In the traditional rite of extreme unction, the five senses are anointed by the priest, who at the same time prays that God deign to forgive the sins committed by these senses: “Through this holy unction and of His most tender mercy, may the Lord pardon thee whatsoever sins thou hast committed by sight [hearing, speech, etc.].” This symbolic action was ruined in the new rite.
How does the new rite of extreme unction spoil this symbolism?
In the new rite, only the forehead and hands are anointed; the sacramental words only mention sin in general.
What other changes were made to extreme unction in the new Ritual?
The new Ritual also tends to make of extreme unction a group celebration. There are directions for the “common celebration of extreme unction for a large assembly.”
Is this communal celebration of extreme unction blameworthy?
Such communal celebrations encourage the administering of this sacrament without distinction between the healthy and the sick during gatherings of the elderly, whereas only someone seriously sick can validly receive the sacrament.
What can be said of the new exorcisms?
The reformed Rite of Exorcism was first published provisionally [ad interim] in 1990, then definitively in 1998. It was one of the last areas affected by the liturgical reform.
Why did the innovators tackle exorcisms so late?
The innovators tackled exorcism so late because it was the least of their concerns (in general, the devil’s influence is minimized or passed over in silence throughout the new liturgy). The German episcopate even declared that it was pointless to publish a new Ritual of exorcisms since henceforth exorcisms shouldn’t be performed at all!1
Are the new exorcism prayers bad?
Fr. Gabriel Amorth, the chief exorcist of the Diocese of Rome and honorary president of the International Association of Exorcists, frankly accused the new exorcism prayers of being ineffectual:
Efficacious prayers, prayers that had been in existence for twelve centuries, were suppressed and replaced by new ineffective prayers….We exorcists have all tried out the new prayers in the New Ritual ad interim and we have come to realize that they are absolutely ineffectual.
How can the ineffectiveness of the new exorcism prayers be explained?
Fr. Amorth stated that “this influence [of “the world beyond”] has had a hand in many of the liturgical reforms.” He also denounced the incompetence of the two commissions that drafted the new Ritual:
None of the members of these commissions had ever performed an exorcism, had ever been present at an exorcism and ever possessed the slightest idea of what an exorcism is. Here lies the error, the original sin of this Ritual. Not one of those who collaborated on it was an exorcism specialist.
Isn’t it excessive to accuse the authors of the new Ritual of incompetence?
Fr. Amorth proves their incompetence by the facts:
Point 15 treats of evil spells and how one should behave when dealing with them….The Roman Ritual used to explain how one should confront it. The New Ritual on the other hand categorically declares that it is absolutely forbidden to perform exorcisms in such cases. Absurd. Evil spells are by far the most frequent causes of possessions and evil procured through the demon: at least 90% of cases. It is as good as telling exorcists they can no longer perform exorcisms.
Are there other facts proving this incompetence?
Fr. Amorth continued:
Point 16 solemnly declares that one should not carry out exorcisms if one is not certain of the presence of the devil. This is a masterstroke of incompetence: the certainty that the devil is present in someone can only be obtained by carrying out an exorcism.
Did the exorcists’ protests have any result?
The exorcists’ protests obtained one thing only: the insertion of a Notification from the Congregation for Divine Worship stating that exorcists are not obliged to use the new Ritual and that, should they wish to do so, they may ask their bishop for authorization to use the old one. In this case, the bishop must in turn ask for authorization from the Congregation which, as the Notification states, “willingly accords it.”
Are there similar deficiencies to be found in the new Ritual for Exorcists?
Fr. Amorth reported, concerning the new Benedictionary:
I have read its 1200 pages minutely. Well! any reference to the fact the Lord must protect us against Satan, that the angels protect us from the attacks of the demon, has been systematically suppressed. All the prayers for the blessing of homes and schools have been suppressed. Everything should be blessed and protected, but today there is no longer any protection against the demon. There no longer exists any defense or any prayers against him.2
What are the consequences of these modifications and suppressions?
The consequences of these changes are visible everywhere: the influence of the devil is making itself felt more and more in our societies.
What can be said, very briefly, about the new funeral rite?
The new funeral rite no longer says anything about the soul, the gravity of judgment, the possibility of damnation or purgatory. It gives the impression that the deceased is assuredly saved and already with God.
Does the new funeral rite leave out the existence of sin?
Like all the other new rites, the funeral rite leaves much latitude in the choice of prayers; the celebrant may make mention of sin and guilt, or he may omit it. As for the word “soul,” it no longer appears in any prayer. During an era when the existence of the human soul is often denied, its mention would be, to the contrary, necessary.
90) Are the sacraments celebrated according to the new rites valid?
The sacraments administered according to the new rites can in principle be valid. However, a doubt exists about the validity of confirmation and extreme unction administered without olive oil. In a certain number of other cases, bad translations of the sacramental form can also cause doubts about the validity of the sacraments.
Why must confirmation and extreme unction be administered with olive oil?
Just as the word wine in the primary meaning of the term designates the fermented juice of grapes—even if it is employed secondarily to designate wine from palm, rice, etc.—so the word oil (oleum) in Antiquity designated in first place, in the proper sense, the liquid obtained from the pressing of olives. Thus, just as only wine from grapes and bread from wheat constitute the valid matter of the Eucharist, likewise olive oil is the valid matter of confirmation and extreme unction. Such was the traditional and common opinion of theologians.3
Is this opinion based solely upon a philological reason?
This opinion is not based primarily on philology, but on the fact that, just as Christ used wheaten bread and grape wine during the Last Supper, so also the anointings that He recommended to the Apostles could only be anointings with olive oil. It would never have occurred to the Apostles to use anything else than oil taken in the proper sense–in the noble sense of the term. The use of another kind of oil renders the validity of the sacrament at least doubtful.
Are there other arguments in favor of olive oil?
It may be observed that on the same Holy Thursday on which He instituted the priesthood—the day also when He took bread and wine to institute the Eucharist—our Lord watered the Garden of Olives with His sweat and blood in proximity to an olive press as if to sanctify the matter of which the holy oils would be made. In fact, it is also on Holy Thursday each year that the bishops consecrate the holy oils during the Chrismal Mass.
When and how did the use in the sacraments of oils other than olive oil originate?
On December 3, 1970, a decree of the Congregation of Rites authorized the utilization of other vegetable oils in the administration of the sacraments.4
How did the Congregation of Rites explain this change?
The Congregation of Rites offered no explanation of how something that had always been considered as probably invalid had suddenly become possible.
Was there, then, no explanation forthcoming for this change of oil?
No doctrinal explanation for this change was given. The decree only invoked a practical reason, which Paul VI adopted two years later in the Apostolic Constitution Sacram Unctionem Infirmorum:
…since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circumstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture.5
Doesn’t this explanation resolve the question?
This practical explanation tends rather to increase the problem, for it is evident that it has never been as easy as today to obtain olive oil in every corner of the globe.6 Now, if till the present, in spite of much greater transportation difficulties, the Church always refused to change the matter of the sacrament, it is because she had good reasons.
Isn’t the change in the form of certain sacraments—for example, the new form for consecrating bishops—a reason for doubting their validity?
Some have argued that the change in the formula for episcopal consecration invalidated new consecrations from 1968 on. But in reality, the new Ritual uses a form close to that of certain Eastern Rites. Thus its validity cannot be seriously challenged even if this dismembering of the Roman rite is deplorable.7
Are there other reasons for doubting the validity of the new sacraments
The presence of correct matter and form are not sufficient to assure the valid confection of a sacrament. The minister must also intend to give the sacrament as the Church wishes to give it.
Then a priest who does not believe in the efficacy of the sacraments is incapable of validly administering the sacraments?
The problem does not lie in the faith of the minister, but in his intention. A priest who has lost the faith can still validly administer the sacraments if he wants to be, at least in this regard, a minister of the Church (if he has the general intention of doing what the Church does). If, on the contrary, he knowingly refuses to be an instrument of Christ and the Church, the sacrament is not valid.
Is it really thinkable that there are priests who administer the sacraments while knowingly refusing to do what the Church does?
Numerous are the priests today who, during their years of study, were deliberately indoctrinated against the Catholic notion of sacrament (mocked as magic and sleight of hand). It cannot be excluded that, in the administration of the sacraments, they quite consciously refuse to effect a sign that gives grace, desiring merely to preside over a community celebration and to fulfill a social function.
91) Should one receive the sacraments in the new rites?
Because of the defects presented above, one should not receive the sacraments in the new rites, but only in the traditional rites, which alone are worthy and certainly valid. Receiving the sacraments under a form that is even slightly doubtful is not allowed. An exception should be made, however, for the last rites, when in case of emergency it is impossible to summon in time a priest faithful to Tradition.
1 A fact reported by Fr. Gabriel Amorth, interviewed in 30 Days, June 2000 (posted online at www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1320032/posts). The subsequent statements by Fr. Amorth are quoted from this interview.
2 Promulgated on May 31, 1984, AAS, LXXVI, 1085-1086.
3 Concerning extreme unction, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “On the contrary, oil is appointed (James 5:14) as the matter of this sacrament. Now, properly speaking, oil is none but olive oil. Therefore this is the matter of this sacrament.”(Suppl., Q. 29, Art. 4).
4 Ordo Benedicendi Olea et Conficiendi Chrisma, nos. 3-4. The 1983 Code of Canon Law (Can. 847) says: “In administering the sacraments in which holy oils must be used, the minister must use oils pressed from olives or other plants and, …consecrated or blessed recently by a bishop….”
5 November 30, 1972 (text online at www.vatican.va).
6 In the 13th century, St. Thomas had already answered the argument according to which olive oil is not available everywhere: “Though olive oil is not produced everywhere, yet it can easily be transported from one place to another” (Suppl., Q. 29, Art. 4, ad 3).
7 See on this subject the study of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., Sont-ils évêques? (Editions du Sel, n.d.).
Current Issue
