THE MYSTERY OF HOLY UNCTION (Eucheleon)

Let us now turn our attention on the mystery of unction. We will also call it euchelaeon, which is essentially a transliteration of the Greek ευχέλαιον, and stands for "blessed oil" (ευχή = blessing prayer, έλαιον = oil).

As the details of this mystery are rather unknown among the Protestant world, and the Roman Catholics have altered it creating an "extreme" version of it (known as extreme unction), we must discuss it in a little more detail. So what do we as Orthodox mean by the word euchelaeon?

As the name suggests, euchelaeon is a mystery of a divine origin (as expected, being a mystery) where an ill member of the Church is oiled i.e.anointed (on parts of his face) by (blessed) oil while this way the divine grace comes healing the ailments of the patient's body and soul.

Hence, as in the case of the previous mysteries we discussed, euchelaeon must have two sources: the Holy Writ and the Patristic theology of (at least) the first four centuries AD; and two elements: visible signs and the invisible divine grace.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE HOLY WRIT

Let us first examine the first source, the Holy Writ. James in his epistle 5:14-15 writes the following:"is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him". In other words, apostle James urges us, when someone among us is sick, to call for the elders (presbyters - used of course in the more loose sense of the word, since clearly the Apostles and hence today's Bishops would conduct this mystery!) of the church so that they can pray for the sick person and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. This prayer that is done in faith will heal the sick person and remove any danger the illness could cause him, and thus the Lord will raise him from his bed. Also, if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.

So where can one find visible signs and the invisible divine grace present in the words of the apostle James as regards euchelaeon in the way the Orthodox define it?

We have two visible signs, and indeed two results from the application of the grace. Visible signs are the anointing of the faithful by oil and the euche (from ευχή i.e. the prayer which is done for his benefit). We consider these as visible signs because we can become aware of them by using our senses (sight, hearing). More specifically, the anointing by oil is "captured" by our sight, and the prayer for the sick by our hearing.

The problem is that many Protestants believe that the above visible signs are not linked with the invisible divine grace. In particular, they claim that the anointing of the sick by oil is a natural means of healing. It is well-known, they claim, that in ancient Hellas they would oil the body of the sick, as they still do today in part, because the oil is an antiphlogistic, a soothing and a lenitive application, many times bringing incredible results. Since even today oil is still considered so important in medicine, we can see how much more important it was in the ancient times, when medicine was still at its very first steps. Thus they essentially claim that the application by oil suggested by James is a physiological one, used for therapeutic purposes.

We have five reasons here that reject the above-mentioned Protestant opinion.

1. If the oil used were to be of a physiological nature, for use as an antiphlogistic and a lenitive application, why is it suggested by James that the appplication be done by specific people within the church, namely the presbyters, and not by the sick person's relatives, or indeed by any person?
2. James' oil appears here as a means that will heal every sickness. Who had ever considered oil in ancient times, and especially today, to be the physiological application, a panacea, i.e. something that heals every ailment?
3. Even if the ancient world was not aware of the fact that oil does not heal all ailments and thus cannot be used as a panacea; was the Holy Spirit also ignorant of this fact, Who speaks via James placing the oil as a therapeutic means, healing every ailment?
4. The text does not say that the healing will happen naturally, via the oil, but via the euche of faith; "η ευχή της πίστεως σώσει τον κάμνοντα", James says expressly, i.e. it is the euche of the faith that saves the one "on whom it is read upon", namely the sick person.
5. James also talks about forgiveness of sins of the sick person, "αν αμαρτίας ή πεποιηκώς αφεθήσεται αυτώ", i.e. if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Could it ever be possible for oil, were it only some natural medium for healing purposes, to have anything to do with the forgiveness of our sins?

For these five reasons we clearly have to reject the Protestant belief. Of course, some Protestants would claim now that of course the oil is not a therapeutic medium but still symbolises and represents medicine. It is a symbol of healing and not a physiological medium of therapy.

Some Protestants (e.g. free evangelicals) call it a symbol of healing. The Orthodox call this thing (as we know from previous discussions) a visible/tangible sign. I will leave it to the reader to examine the various (numerous) existing variations on this definition, to satisfy himself that mainly, these Protestants either have managed to link the oil to the divine grace like the Orthodox but failed to realise the nature of the mystery or have completely failed to realise the aforementioned five points. In reality, no Protestants accept euchelaeon as a Mystery (in the Orthodox sense), but their claims can vary from town to town and from country to country even within the same sub-denomination (e.g. both beliefs can be found in Evangelical subdivisions).

So let us give the Orthodox position here, which has stayed always the same, and where the "symbol" is called "a visible sign". I will demonstrate exactly the reason why we avoid using the word "symbol" for the visible sign:

In the Holy Writ, the symbol, the typos, is separated (by time or some other constraint) from the thing being symbolised. Whereas the visible (or even notice-able i.e. tangible) sign of the Mysteries is, according to the Orthodox, an indispensable element of the divine grace. I refer the reader at this point to the original definition of the word "Mystery" given earlier. Let us attempt to explain this better.

In the Old Testament we have numerous symbols, typoe and shadows: the sacrifices, circumcision, the coppery snake in the desert etc., which had as symbolised objects, as essence, Christ, baptism, the Cross etc. These symbols are being separated chronologically from the symbolised elements, for these were before Christ (pre-christian), whereas the symbolised objects, the essence, were real and valid in Christ's times and afterwards as well, continuously from the post-apostolic times till today and beyond. Apart from the above, we must also note that when Christ, the essence, arrived, the symbols, the typoe and shadows that were before Christ, were cancelled. But in the case of the euchelaeon, the application of the oil must never be separated from the euche of faith and from the consequences of that prayer, namely from the therapy of body and soul. All these elements present in euchelaeon appear as integral elements simultaneously.

So to recap and avoid falling into a "definition" trap, I will simply say this: if you the reader in your own tradition are used to calling the above oil as a "symbol" and not a "visible sign", that is fine by me provided we both understand that we are talking about the same thing. Clearly, since the oil used in euchelaeon cannot be separated from the prayer of faith and its consequences, namely the healing of body and soul, whereas the symbols (being symbols) are being separated from the symbolised elements both chronologically and essentially, don't you think that the two things are diffenent? And, as common logic dictates, two different things must also have a different name in order for us to be able to discern between the two.

Therefore, we will adopt here the name "visible sign" or "tangible sign", i.e. a sign which can be noticed using our five senses, as we have used this term all along in our analysis pages.

So let us now turn our attention to the other issue, namely the transmitted grace. What about that? As we said above, the transmitted grace can be analysed into the double healing of body and soul. James tells us this quite explicitly:

1. the "ευχή της πίστεως σώσει τον κάμνοντα", namely the prayer which is done in faith will heal the sick person, and
2. "καν αμαρτίας ή πεποιηκώς αφεθήσεται αυτώ", i.e. if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.

Let us examine each of these aspects separately. And first of all, the reader might say that he has never witnessed in history personally, any instance where a miraculous healing of a certain sick person took place via oil.

If the reader doubts, at this point, I will simply ask: are James and the Holy Spirit talking through him both lying shamelessly here? The reader will admit that that cannot be the case, but the question still needs to be answered: what then?

Firstly, one must realise that the mystery of euchelaeon was not given with the aim of healing every sickness and thus abolishing death, making us immortal! This would be against the divine economy according to which Paul tells us expressly: "έσχατος εχθρός καταργείται θάνατος" (1 Corinth. 15:26), i.e. the last enemy that shall be cancelled (destroyed, abolished) is death. Death, in other words, will be destroyed lastly, at the end of the world, during the time of the resurrection of the dead. Therefore the eucheleaon exists correlated to man's mortality and is not independent of it. Apart from this, we must also say here that the effect of euchelaeon on the body's ailment is not immediate, a miracle, an impressive and vivid event, but an indirect gradual improvement of the sick person's health, so that he may be healed eventually, God willing. Such therapies cannot of course be proved, however we cannot reject them either since the Holy Spirit talks explicitly saying: "σώσει τον κάμνοντα και εγερεί αυτόν ο Κύριος", i.e. it will save the one on whom the prayer is read upon, the sick person, and the Lord will raise him. If we pay slightly more attention to the words of the original here we can see that it is talking about a gradual betterment of the man's health, and not an instantaneous one.

A good question somebody could raise at this point is the following: could James here by any chance be talking about the miraculous therapy, it being a certain charisma present in the apostolic times and which therapy was done by the Apostles who "anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them" (Mark 6:13) or any of the thaumaturgical charismata of healing diseases during the Apostolic times that Apostle Paul mentions (e.g. "to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit" (1 Corinth. 12:9), "have all the gifts of healing?" (1 Corinth. 12:30) )?

Euchelaeon is not related to any of these charismata. because the miraculous charismata of healing had been given to people "άλλω χαρίσματα ιαμάτων", i.e. it says: to another the gifts of healing were given, and exceptionally. In other words only certain people had received these, under exceptional circumstances. But James' suggestion that we go to the church's presbyters when sick, shows that he is not talking about an exceptional event, but about a repetitive thing; he talks about a certain class of clergy in the church and not about certain charismatic persons elected by God in exceptional circumstances.

OK, the reader will agree at this point. We agree so far that we are dealing with a gradual improvement of the body's health via euchelaeon. But you may ask now: does this improvement happen always, every time we conduct euchelaeon?

We can easily deduce that it cannot be done always, for otherwise by conducting a euchelaeon we would abolish death. Since death is the last enemy, how come you expect euchelaeon to always heal? Don't you think that if that happened all the sick Orthodox christians would conduct euchelaeon and thus not die? Euchelaeon would abolish then not only death but the science of medicine, which is of course God's!

The reader might conclude then erroneously that euchelaeon does not act always, and there are times when this mystery is conducted essentially without any results.

But no! Why not? Because the second purpose of euchelaeon, as we mentioned before, is the therapy of one's soul. James says this explicitly: "καν αμαρτίας ή πεποιηκώς αφεθήσεται αυτώ", i.e. "and if he commits sins, these will be forgiven him". (Notice that it does not say “if he does any sin, that sin will be forgiven him” but “if he sins”, talking about certain types of sins implied in context).

We know however, you might say, that sins are forgiven via confession (in front of a priest) via the Lord's blood, after having gone through some or all of the various other "stages of confession" (prayer, charity etc.) leading us of course ultimately to the mystical confession. How come you tell me now that euchelaeon forgives one's sins? Does euchelaeon then abolish our repentance and the blood of the crucificial sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Of course, to that we must immediately bring the question: is it possible for the crucifical sacrifice to abolish euchelaeon since it is expressly mentioned in the Holy Writ? The reader will hasten to admit that of course not, and we must find a way to reconcile things here.

I will turn the reader's attention now to two things:

1. James' declaration that the sick person "καν αμαρτίας ή πεποιηκώς αφεθήσεται αυτώ" is explicit and clear; "and if he does sins these will be forgiven him". In other words, he connects the forgiveness of sins with the mystery of euchelaeon. This is something that we cannot possibly reject.
2. More importantly, notice that first word of this verse, that "καν" (= και + αν = and if). Doesn't it sound a little peculiar to you? And to make myself better understood: As is well-known and as we have discussed before, man is a sinner; "πολλά γαρ πταίομεν άπαντες", James himself says elsewhere, i.e. "in many things we offend all" (James 3:1-2). Why then does James here place that "and if" regarding euchelaeon ("and if we have committed sins these will be forgiven us") since we know that we are sinners? Isn't that "and if" redundant?

The answer is that "καν αμαρτίας ή πεποιηκώς αφεθήσεται αυτώ" is not referring to any of the sins of the sick person bar those sins which caused his disease in the first place. The fact that our sins can cause our body to get sick is certified by our Lord: after our Lord healed the paralytic, He told him "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:14). Apostle Paul says in his 1 Corinthians epistle 11:29-30: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep". Thus, if euchelaeon will not heal the patient's body, it does not fail in its "mission", for it has a second purpose, namely the spiritual healing of the patient, the forgiveness of his sins, that is, those sins that caused his illness in the first place.

Clearly, from the above, we see that the mystery of euchelaeon does not cancel the crucificial sacrifice of our Lord, and vice versa. But what about confession in front of a priest? Does it cancel that?

No. Because the Christian faithful during confession confesses the sins which he committed knowingly, in other words the sins that he remembers. How many sins however do we commit unknowingly everyday, without even realising that we did them and thus we are not conscious of them or do not remember them? How many sins we commit have escaped our mind's eye! Is it impossible that one of these sins were responsible for our illness? Certainly not! Therefore we see that these sins are forgiven via the mystery of euchelaeon. Of course one must first confess the sins he remembers and are "on his conscience" a burden, and then have these sins which he does not remember wiped clean via the mystery of euchelaeon. Consequently, we see that the mystery of euchelaeon does not cancel but complement the mystery of repentance, the exomologesis in other words in front of a priest. For these reasons exactly from ancient times would the Church conduct the mystery of euchelaeon after the mystery of exomologesis and before the mystery of the divine eucharist.

Let us now turn to the fathers of the early Church. The biblical evidence was overwhelming (James speaks explicitly and clearly) and there is little need to turn to patristic theology as well. But we will do so for reasons of completeness. So here are five typical examples from the first 4 centuries AD.

PATRISTIC EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES AD

1. HIPPOLYTUS (b. 150 AD)

In his work "Apostolic Disposition" from the Egyptian disposition, he writes during some euche the following:

"ut oleum hoc sanctificans das, Deus, Sanitatem utentibus et percipientibus, unde uncxisti reges, sacerdotas, profetas, sic et omnibus gustantibus et sanitatem utentibus illud praebeat" (from the extracts of Veroe, published by Heiler); I explain:

"in order to consecrate this oil, give health, o God, to those in need and receiving this; in the same way you have anointed kings, priests, prophets, this way too provide health to all that taste it and are in need of it".

2. ORIGEN (b. 185 AD)

Origen writes, in his in Lev speech, II 4:

"Audi nunc quantae sint remissiones peccatorum in Evangeliis. Est ista prima, qua baptizamur in remissionem peccatorum ... In quo impletur et illud, quod jacobus apostolus dicit. Si quis autem infirmatur vocet presbyteros Ecclesiae et imponant ei manus, ungentes oleo in nomine Domini, et oratio fidei salvabit infirmum, et si in peccatis fuerit remittentur ei"; I explain:

"Hear now how many ways of forgiveness of sins are mentioned in the Gospels. First is the one according to which we are baptised for the remission of sins ... In this is fulfilled (realised) that which apostle Jacob (James) said: 'is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church'" etc. Therefore we see that Origen talks clearly and explicitly on the remission of sins via euchelaeon.

3. SERAPION THMOUEON (300 AD)

Serapion's euchologion (prayer book) is a collection of thirty euches related to the liturgy, the mysteries and the services of the church, and is of particular importance in the history of church worship. In this euchologion we find among other prayers two special euchae (plural of euche):

"ευχή εις έλαιον νοσούντων ή εις άρτον ή εις ύδωρ"; namely:

"prayer for patients' oil or for bread or for water", i.e. a list of prayers that bless oil (for healing patients during the euchelaeon) or bread (unconsecrated) or water (holy water).

4. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

The great hierarch Chrysostom, in his speech on priesthood (III, 6) writes: "οι μεν γαρ (κατά σάρκα γονείς) εις ταύτην οι δε (κατά πνεύμα γονείς) εις εκείνην γεννώσιν. Κακείνοι μεν ουδέ τον σωματικόν δύναντ' αν αμύναι θάνατον ου νόσον επενεχθείσαν αποκρούσασθαι. Ούτοι δε και κάμνουσαν και απόλλυσθαι μέλλουσαν αυτήν πολλάκις έσωσαν. Τοις μεν πραοτέραν την κόλασιν εργασάμενοι τους δε ουδέ παρά την αρχήν αφέντες εμπεσείν ου τω διδάσκειν μόνον και νουθετείν, αλλά και δι' ευχών βοηθείν. Ου γαρ όταν ημάς αναγεννώσι δια του βαπτίσματος μόνον, αλλά και τα μετά ταύτα συγχωρείν έχουσιν εξουσίαν αμαρτήματα. Ασθενεί τις, φησιν, εν υμίν; προσκαλεσθάσθω τους πρεσβυτέρους της εκκλησίας" etc.; I explain:

"for the fleshly parents are in her and the spiritual parents will be in her. And those cannot withstand neither corporal death nor some illness that has arrived. They have saved many a time those who would suffer from some terrible illness or even from some deadly illness. The pain of the former was made softer (by them), whereas regarding the others, not only did they not let them fall, not only did they teach them and advise them, but with their blessings (euchae) they helped them. Not only when they rebear us via baptism (do they forgive our sins), but they have authority to forgive even our later sins: 'is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church'" etc.

Thus holy father Chrysostom presents euchelaeon as a means of forgiveness of sins (the reader is urged to look up the source of course to read around father Chrysostom's words; we merely quote a tiny part here in a terrible word-for-word translation).

5. APOSTOLIC COMMANDS

In the book "Criticism of deceptions" ("πλανών έλεγχος") by an Evangelical (Mr. Makris, c. 1950), it is mentioned on page 117 that the Apostolic Commands expressed the formal canon of the church in the fourth century AD. This is in fact accepted by most non-orthodox theologians of course, not just evangelicals. This is good news for of course we as Orthodox accept them as well; the following excerpt therefore plays an important role in our discussion.

These Apostolic Commands mention in VIII, 29: "ευλογείτω ο Επίσκοπος το ύδωρ ή το έλαιον. Εάν μη παρή ευλογείτω ο πρεσβύτερος παρεστώτος του διακόνου" i.e. "The Bishop should bless the water or the oil. If he is absent, the presbyter should bless it in the presence of the deacon". Euche: "Κύριε Σαβαώθ Θεέ των δυνάμεων οικτίρμων και φιλάνθρωπε, κτίστα των υδάτων χορηγέ του ελαίου" i.e. "Lord Sabbaoth, God of (all) powers, merciful and benevolent, creator of the waters, provider of the oil" (we pray) in order for "το ύδωρ τούτο και το έλαιον επ' ονόματι του προσκομίσαντος" i.e. "this water and this oil in the name of the one who brought these (the sick person)" be sanctified and for the Lord to give unto him "δια Χριστού δύναμιν υγείας εμποιητικήν νόσων απελαστικήν, δαιμόνων φυγαδευτικήν, πάσης επιβουλής διωκτικήν" i.e. "ability to: stay healthy, keep diseases away from him, send away the demons, and keep away from him all harmful machinations".

CONCLUSION

We see clearly that the mystery of euchealeon (unction) stands well both hagiographically and patristically carrying its two required ingredients: visible sign and invisible grace. Thus we must accept it as a Mystery.

What about "extreme" unction?

This is a Roman Catholic notion; it is unction carried out similarly to the Orthodox unction (although the anointing is not done in the same way, i.e. they have deviated in this respect as well) but only towards the end of someone's life or when someone is very ill, under extreme circumstances, hence its name. However as we saw clearly in the words of St. James the Apostle, the Mystery is to be carried out in a repetitive fashion and not rarely. Even though the Roman Catholic Church accepts it as a Mystery by the way of conduct they have essentially abolished it.

A NOTE ON "PENANCE"

Similarly, "penance" which is a Roman Catholic term used to describe the Mystery of Exomologesis (Confession in front of a priest) implies some sort of "punishment" for the one going to confession (hence the name), whereas in Orthodoxy the priest is our spiritual guide who performs a "spiritual operation" removing our sins via our Lord's blood, helping and aiding us in our battle, giving us an "instruction" rather than a "censure" (which is also a Roman Catholic term; I used it for "instruction").

Also, there is no confessional box to separate the "unknown priest/punisher" from the faithful in Orthodoxy, where the faithful must talk to the priest face to face, for else how will he be exercised in true humility? What is the point of confession otherwise if he hides his face and the priest never sees him? How does that differ from the Protestant "pray only directly to God" mistake? Of course, in practice most Roman Catholic priests are aware of who is in the confessional box with them, but the principle is that any person who goes into confession can do so undetected should they wish to do so! This anomaly in the ecclesiastical eutaxy of Roman Catholicism of course stems from 16th century practice when Charles Borromeo first ordered the use of a metal grill between priest and penitent in Milan in 1565. Before that time "the priest normally administered the sacrament in its private form while seated on a chair in some part of the church; the penitent stood or sat beside him and knelt for the absolution", as the online Britannica tells us. In other words, before 16th-century Roman Catholicism, the practice in the West was identical to the one in the Orthodox East. Of course this is an integral element in confession and the Orthodox Church would never accept the use of the confessional box when the Roman Catholic Church eventually becomes Orthodox, because it alters the Mystery in an essential way. The excuse Roman Catholics give about the way priests may wrongly acknowledge the people's sins when they see them, stems from many reasons, one of the main being the Papal Church's decline during that period with many scandals of their clerics that shook the faithful people and this was essentially accepted as a means to reduce various problems that presented themselves thus. This however cannot be used as an excuse for this situation to continue.

Finally we must always use the same confessor priest of course, as much as the circumstances allow this, whereas the use of the confessional box means of course that each time a Roman Catholic confesses his/her sins they can do so not only hidden but go wherever they want to each time, change their confessor priest every week if they wish to do so! Of course, the Mystery is not proper in Roman Catholicism because (like in all heresies) the divine grace (one of the two indispensable elements for the presence of the Mystery) is missing, because God does not grant His spirit in heresy (although He helps people individually of course, because He is compassionate and loves all, not only heterodox but even atheists and allodox). For this reason problems multiplied for the Spirit is absent now during the Mystery, for it is not any more a Mystery, being conducted in heresy.

However, it is important that we do point out the differences so that once these problems are rectified they can return to the One Path and then its priests receive the gratis of Orthodox priesthood and everything become again normal in the Roman Catholic Church. We have a long way to go, but it will happen one day. May God grant this sooner.