Scotus Academicus, Tomus decimus: De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Extrema Unctione

No one should wonder that, contrary to the method adopted by certain modern authors, who, because the Sacrament of extreme unction is customarily conferred only in the final period of life, undertake to treat it last in the order of all the Sacraments, we have instead undertaken to explain it in third place. For we are prompted to this order of treatment not only by the practice of the more illustrious princes of theology, especially the Master of the Sentences and the Subtle Doctor, but above all by the Council of Trent, Session XIV, which, after setting forth the doctrine of the sacrament of penance, immediately presents and teaches what pertains to holy unction, by which the dying are strengthened and prepare for themselves the way and approach to the harbor of eternal blessedness. It adds this splendid reason for the method it adopts: The holy Synod judged it fitting to join to the preceding doctrine on penance what follows concerning the sacrament of extreme unction, which the Fathers considered consummative not only of penance but also of the whole Christian life, which ought to be perpetual penance. In these words it clearly signifies that the two Sacraments which bring aid—one to those dead through sin, the other to those dying in life—are so closely joined that the holy unction of the dying may rightly be seen as the happy and illustrious completion of salutary penance, through which those dead through sin put on new grace in Christ. And this was wisely done: for no one is unaware that the sacrament of penance was instituted by Christ the Lord through divine authority so that people may wash away the stains of the sins they incur in the course of this mortal life. Yet another remedy was necessary, by which a sacred healing power might be granted to a person at the point of death, no longer able to help himself by his own acts—a power that would wipe away not only the remnants of sins and illnesses, but also restore the soul's complete and perfect holiness. This is indeed the most excellent office of the sacred unction of the dying; for, as the Council of Trent aptly says in chapter 2: The reality and effect of this Sacrament are grace and the Holy Spirit, whose unction wipes away offenses, if any require expiation, and the remnants of sin. There is another comparison between this holy unction and the sacrament of penance that displays their fellowship and bond. Just as penance erases and cancels the debt of sins, so holy unction washes away those remnants of sins, or their troubling recollection, which commonly distress and torment a person at the point of death. For, as the Council of Trent says in the same place: This unction relieves and strengthens the sick person's soul by awakening in him great confidence in divine mercy, so that, once strengthened, he bears more lightly the discomforts and labors of illness. We therefore do not join the explanation of this Sacrament to the exposition of the sacrament of penance in a reversed order, since these two remedies for wounded human nature aim at the same end and goal. And just as the sacrament of penance is the second plank after shipwreck, by which the faithful in the Church militant happily reach the harbor of innocence, so through extreme unction, with the breeze of divine grace blowing, they happily make landfall at the harbor of the Church triumphant and of eternal happiness. — Now, since theologians raise only a few disputed questions concerning the doctrine of this Sacrament, we shall complete the present Disputation in only three Questions: the first will explain the existence of this Sacrament, the second its essence, and the third its effects.

NOTE 1. With Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, part 15, chapter 1, there are in the Church militant three kinds of sacred oil and three kinds of unction by which the faithful are customarily anointed and, as it were, consecrated. The first is that with which catechumens and neophytes are anointed on the breast and between the shoulders in preparation for receiving the sacrament of baptism. The second is chrism, with which the baptized are anointed to receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of confirmation. Hence Hugh calls it the oil of the principal chrism, because, as the Master of the Sentences says in distinction 23, the Paraclete is chiefly given with the unction; hence, because of the abundance of grace, it contains two mixed liquids, namely oil and balsam: oil of conscience and balsam of good faith. Chrism, however, is called chrism in Greek and unction in Latin. Yet not every oil consecrated for anointing is called chrism, but only that which is mixed with balsam: with it the heads of kings and pontiffs are anointed; with it, too, the priest anoints the baptized on the crown of the head, and the bishop anoints on the forehead those to be confirmed through the imposition of hands. The third kind of oil is what is called oil of the sick, and it alone will be discussed here. — In addition, another celebrated unction was customary among the faithful, used for the bodily cure of illnesses and the expulsion of demons. Tertullian mentions it in To Scapula, chapter 4, where he relates that Proculus, a Christian surnamed Torpacion, cured by oil Euhodia's steward and also the Emperor Antoninus. Blessed Jerome also mentions this custom of Christians who cured illnesses with oil, in the life of blessed Hilarion: farmers bitten by serpents and venomous animals received oil blessed by him, anointed their wounds with it, and were restored to their former health. Rufinus relates the same in Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 4, concerning the disciples of blessed Antony; Sulpicius Severus, in the life of St. Martin, tells of a mute woman and a paralytic cured by his blessed oil; and Palladius relates similar things of the two Macarii. I pass over many others whose miracles through oil are recounted in the six volumes of Surius's Lives of the Saints, which may be located from the indexes. Likewise, St. Didacus used to anoint with the oil of the church lamp all the sick who came to him for a cure, and thus healed their illnesses and infirmities.

✳ “This is why the ancient Christians were called by the pagans ἄλειπθαι, that is, anointers. On this subject there is an excellent passage in the letter of the Emperor Hadrian to Servianus, in the life of St. Saturninus, in Vopiscus. There he speaks of Samaritan, Jewish, and Christian presbyters and bishops; after examining their customs, he seems to have wished to sum them up in this outburst: ‘There is no Samaritan, no Jewish synagogue leader, no Christian presbyter there who is not a diviner, astrologer, or anointer.’ The Samaritans were perhaps thought to cultivate divination because they examined the purity of victims with greater care than others, or because their name in Hebrew seemed to denote diligent and attentive observers. The Jews were very devoted to mathematics and astrology, and, since they acknowledged fate and admitted the force of the stars upon human will, the emperor could rightly list them among astrologers. But because Christian presbyters busied themselves with anointings, the emperor likewise called them anointers, for anointing was indeed very frequent among them, and the miracles performed through anointing won them great repute among all.” ✳

NOTE 2. Various heretics denied that extreme unction, which is customarily administered in the Church to the dangerously ill, is a true Sacrament of the New Law. First, the Waldensians and Albigensians openly denied it, as did Wycliffe, Trialogue, book 4, chapter 25, where he argues that this ceremony was instituted neither by Christ nor by the Apostles. Luther agrees with him in The Babylonian Captivity, where he speaks thus of Catholic doctors: If ever there has been delirium about extreme unction, it is especially now; it is a fiction, based on this saying of the Apostle: “If anyone among you is sick,” etc., that a person must be anointed by us, when it is not a Sacrament but a fiction. Calvin supports this view in Institutes, book 4, section 18 and following, where he contends that the unction mentioned by St. James pertained only to the grace of healings, which flourished only in the time of the Apostles. “That unction, he says, was used by the Apostles in healing the sick, not to be an instrument of healing but only a symbol, by which the ignorance of the unlearned might be taught whence such power came, lest they attribute its praise to the Apostles. That oil signifies the Holy Spirit and his gifts is common and well known; but that grace of healings has vanished, like the other miracles that the Lord willed to last for a time, in order to make the new preaching of the Gospel forever marvelous.” All the followers of these heresiarchs think the same; they acknowledge only two Sacraments with them, namely baptism and the Eucharist. Their error must be opposed in the present Question.

NOTE 3. Although many theologians have asserted that extreme unction is truly a Sacrament, they have nevertheless held that it was instituted not by Christ the Lord but only by the Apostles. Thus, among others, Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, book 2, in the chapter cited above; the Master of the Sentences, in In IV Sent., distinction 23; and the Seraphic Doctor, in the same place, part 1, question 2. After rejecting the opinion of those who say that all the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, he adds: “Therefore others say, more probably—and the Master seems to think this, indeed he says it expressly—that the Holy Spirit instituted this Sacrament through the Apostles, as was said above about the sacrament of confirmation. That this could have happened is clear, since he is the chief Teacher, just as Christ is. It is also clear by example: for the Apostles, at the Holy Spirit’s prompting, temporarily changed the form of baptism instituted and confirmed by Christ; how much more, then, could they institute what Christ had intimated? And that this was fitting is clear if we consider the diversity of the Sacraments. Some are common to the Old and New Laws, some are proper in the strictest sense to the New Law, and some occupy an intermediate place. Those that are common are in a certain way dictated by nature; because nature’s dictate always remains the same, those Sacraments have been in use from the beginning, such as marriage and penance, insofar as it reconciles one to God. The Lord Jesus perfected and confirmed these in the New Law and did not abolish them. Some are proper in the strictest sense to the New Law: those that signify grace in a state proper to the New Law, and there are two of these—confirmation and unction. In them is signified the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which one is anointed as a champion, so that he may dare to die for Christ, and as a king, so that he may enter the kingdom of heaven as his own. This is proper to the New Law; therefore these two Sacraments had no definite figure in the Old Testament. And because they signify the grace of the Holy Spirit in abundance, while the Holy Spirit was not given abundantly until Jesus was glorified, as John 7 says, these two Sacraments were intimated by Christ but later instituted by the Holy Spirit. Some Sacraments occupy an intermediate place: they did not exist in truth in the Old Law, but did exist in figure and signification, as baptism, the Eucharist, and order. Because Christ fulfilled the law and abolished its figures, he instituted these three himself. Thus it is clear how the Sacraments of the Church were established and instituted most fittingly, so that nothing was done through forgetfulness but all according to God’s ineffable dispensation.” Two things, therefore, must be established here: first, that extreme unction is a Sacrament; second, that it was instituted by Christ the Lord.

First conclusion. — EXTREME UNCTION, WHICH IS CUSTOMARILY ADMINISTERED TO THE FAITHFUL WHO ARE SICK, IS A TRUE SACRAMENT OF THE NEW LAW, PROPERLY SO CALLED. This is a matter of faith, declared at the Council of Chalon, held in the time of Charlemagne under Leo III, around the year 818, canon 48, where it is decreed: Following the teaching of blessed James the Apostle, with which the decrees of the Fathers also agree, the sick are to be anointed by priests with oil blessed by bishops. After citing the words of St. James, it adds: This kind of medicine, which heals ailments of soul and body, must not be treated as insignificant. The same is established at the Council of Florence, in the decree of Eugenius, where this extreme unction is numbered among the seven Sacraments of the New Law. The same is also taught at the Council of Mainz, held in the year of our Lord 1549, which decrees in chapter 34 concerning extreme unction: Our pastors teach that the sacred unction is a protection for the sick and for those nearing the end of life, and that it was handed down by the Lord and practiced at his command by the first Apostles. When it is administered to the sick through the prayer of faith, by the operation of divine power it gives those who rightly receive it relief and charity against bodily illnesses and terrors of conscience; it removes lesser sins and purges the remaining traces of graver ones, in keeping with the Apostle’s testimony and the received teaching of the consenting Church. The Synod of Constance also supports this, for in Session XV Martin V decrees that a person suspected of heresy is to be asked whether he believes that a Christian sins mortally by despising reception of the Sacraments of confirmation or extreme unction. — But the Council of Trent teaches this truth most clearly and plainly in Session XIV, chapter 1, On Extreme Unction, where it says: This sacred unction of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and properly so-called Sacrament of the New Testament; it was intimated, indeed, in Mark, but commended and promulgated to the faithful by the Apostle James, the brother of the Lord. And canon 1 says: If anyone says that extreme unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James, but only a rite received from the Fathers or a human fiction, let him be anathema.

The conclusion is proved, first, as follows: that is a true and properly so-called Sacrament which is a visible sign divinely and permanently instituted, to which is attached the promise of grace to be conferred through it. But extreme unction has all three of these characteristics. Therefore it is a true and properly so-called Sacrament.

The major premise is established by what we said about the Sacraments in general. The minor premise is proved by the authority of St. James, chapter 5 of his Epistle, where he says: Is anyone among you sick? Let him summon the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he is in sins, they will be forgiven him. These words of the Apostle declare the three conditions required for a Sacrament. First, there is an external and sensible sign, both with respect to matter and with respect to form, in the words: Anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; just as it is said of baptism, baptizing them in the name of the Lord, so that in both cases a sign is indicated that certainly produces its effect by God’s power. Second, a constant and permanent institution appears from the words: Is anyone among you sick? These words, uttered absolutely and without any limitation of time, are directed not only to those to whom the holy Apostle addressed his Epistle, but also to all the faithful who would come after, since that Epistle is Catholic—that is, universal—and addressed to all Christ’s faithful. Third, there is a promise of grace to be conferred through that rite in the words: The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he is in sins, they will be forgiven him. Here the Sacrament’s twofold effect is declared: its primary effect is remission of sin, and consequently the infusion of grace, for sin is not remitted in the ordinary way without the infusion of grace. Therefore that extreme unction has all the characteristics of a true Sacrament.

HERETICS REPLY: First, the unction of which St. James speaks was ordered only to bodily cures through the gift of miracles, which then flourished in the Church, and consequently was not a true Sacrament. They prove the antecedent: St. James prescribes no unction other than the one mentioned by St. Mark, chapter 6, when he reports of the Apostles sent to preach that they anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. But that unction was only curative, not sacramental. Therefore the unction of which St. James speaks is no different. — On the contrary, the Apostle expressly asserts that sins are truly remitted through that unction: If he is in sins, he says, they are forgiven him. Therefore he speaks not only of bodily healing through the gift of miracles, but also of healing the mind through the infusion of grace and the remission of sins. In reply to the proof, however, I deny the major premise: the unction commended by St. James was quite different from the one mentioned by St. Mark, as is clear with respect to the minister, the recipient, and the effect. With respect to the minister: the unction of which St. James speaks must be performed by priests, whereas the one mentioned by St. Mark was performed by the Apostles, who were not yet priests, since they were initiated and constituted priests of the Gospel only on the night of the Supper, the day before Christ suffered. A distinction between the two kinds of unction also appears with respect to the subject: the unction mentioned by St. Mark was conferred indiscriminately on both the faithful who were baptized and unbelievers; indeed, it seems to have been instituted especially for unbelievers, so that, seeing the miracles performed through that unction, they might be moved more readily to the faith. “Signs,” says St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 14, “are not for believers but for unbelievers.” The unction of which St. James speaks, however, must be administered only to the faithful who have been baptized, since the Apostle addresses only the faithful when he says, Is anyone among you sick? Hence he also adds, Let him summon the presbyters of the Church, etc. Third and finally, the difference between the two unctions appears with respect to their effect: the unction mentioned by St. Mark was ordered only to bodily healing, especially to driving demons from the possessed; the unction mentioned by St. James, however, is ordered to the healing of souls.

THEY REPLY 2. By the words, If he is in sins, they will be forgiven him, St. James does not mean that remission of sins is an effect of that unction by divine promise. He means only that the Apostles, or presbyters, when using this unction to cure bodily illnesses, first admonished the sick to do penance and warned them that sins are usually the cause of illness, and therefore must be removed through penance so that the disease might be eradicated at its root. — But on the contrary, even if we freely grant that these things are so, heretics gain no support for their error from it and cannot infer that extreme unction is not a true Sacrament, since they teach that grace in baptism and the Eucharist is not caused by the work performed, but only through the faith and penance of the recipient, aroused by the words and preaching of the minister who confers the Sacrament. Add that this interpretation is wholly invented, since St. James does not say even a word there about such an admonition by ministers, which would have to arouse faith and penance in the sick person.

The conclusion is proved second by the authority and tradition of the ancient Fathers, who mention this kind of holy unction. In the first place, St. Dionysius the Areopagite seems to allude to it in the chapter On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, near the end, where he speaks of an anointing of the living that took place after Communion and sanctified a person. Likewise, in Homily 2 on Leviticus, Origen infers from the words of St. James cited above that the priests of the New Law have the power to remit sins. Tertullian teaches the same in book 1 of Against Marcion, where he mentions baptism, extreme unction, and the Eucharist, saying: Christ will reject neither the water with which he washes his own, nor the oil with which he anoints his own, nor the sharing of honey and milk with which he nourishes his infants, nor the bread by which he represents his own Body. The same appears in Burchard, book 18, chapter 11, in the canon of Pope and Martyr Eusebius, which orders a priest, when attending a sick person deprived of speech, if witnesses to his penance are present and the signs can be performed, to do all those things that are customarily done for others: that is, to say the prayers, anoint him with holy oil, and give him the Eucharist. — St. Chrysostom agrees in book 3 of On the Priesthood, chapter 6, where he compares this Sacrament in its effect with baptism. Among other things, commending the dignity of priests, he says: For they obtain the power not only to regenerate us, but also afterward to forgive us our sins. He confirms this from the words of James mentioned above. St. Augustine, too, in book 5 of On Baptism, chapter 20, recognizes four Sacraments of the New Law, namely baptism, extreme unction, the Eucharist, and penance. He says: If the saying in the Gospel means that Sacraments are not celebrated through a sinner, how will it excuse a murderer who prays over the water of baptism, or over the oil, or over the Eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom hands are laid? That is, through reconciliation. And in Sermon 215, On the Season, before the middle, he commends the sacramental use and effect of extreme unction in these words: Whenever some illness comes upon him, let the sick person receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and then (or afterward) anoint his little body, so that what is written may be fulfilled in him: “Is anyone among you sick?” More explicitly, the author of the treatise On the Rectitude of the Catholic Faith, among Augustine’s works, volume 9, says: Let the sick person trust in God’s mercy alone. Let him receive the Eucharist with faith and devotion and ask the Church for blessed oil, with which his body may be anointed; and, according to the Apostle, the prayer of faith will save the sick person. Likewise, Innocent I, a contemporary of Augustine and greatly praised by him, as well as by Chrysostom and Jerome, was asked by Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, whether extreme unction should be given to penitents from whom the other Sacraments were withheld. He replies as follows in the letter written to him, chapter 8: This cannot be poured upon penitents (that is, the oil of extreme unction), because it is a kind of Sacrament: for if the other Sacraments are denied to them, how can it be thought that one kind may be granted? Peter Damian, in Sermon 1 on the dedication of a church, says: The third Sacrament is the unction of the sick. Finally, St. Bernard, near the end of The Life of St. Malachy, reports that he asked for this Sacrament at the end of his life. Add to this the agreement of the Greek Church with the Latin Church, which counts extreme unction among the Sacraments of the New Law. Thus Nicholas Cabasilas acknowledges in Exposition of the Liturgy, chapter 29, that extreme unction is a true Sacrament, writing: The priests’ prayer effects the remission of sins and the final sacrament of oil; he says that it has an Apostolic tradition, and proves this from the words of St. James cited above.

Finally, the Doctor proves this truth by reasoning, distinction 23, number 2. First, it was possible for God to institute an efficacious sign by which venial sins would be remitted for a person lying at the point of death; second, this institution was fitting; third, it was carried out. He proves the first point as follows: “It is possible, he says, for God to remit venial sins at the end; therefore it is possible for an efficacious sign of this remission to be instituted by him. The consequence is clear, because a person can institute an efficacious practical sign of any work of his; therefore it is much more possible for God. And so he can institute any sensible sign whose institution involves no contradiction as an efficacious practical sign of this effect. This is also fitting: namely, that a person about to depart this life be finally freed from venial sins, because, if unremitted, these would impede the attainment of glory; and they could remain unremitted until death, since a sinner commits such sins almost continually. This has also been done. It is proved from the saying of James 5, If he is in sins, they will be forgiven him. He does not mean mortal sins, because these are remitted only in baptism or penance; therefore he means venial sins.” — The Council of Trent gives another reason for this institution at the beginning of its doctrine on the sacrament of extreme unction, drawing it from the imminent danger that threatens people at the final period of life: both the fear of divine judgment and the more severe and fierce assaults of the demons’ temptations at that time. It says: Our most merciful Redeemer, who at every time has willed that his servants be provided with saving remedies against all the weapons of all their enemies, just as he prepared the greatest aids in the other Sacraments, by which Christians might keep themselves free from every graver spiritual distress while they live, so he fortified the end of life with the Sacrament of extreme unction as with a very strong defense. For although our adversary seeks and seizes opportunities throughout our whole life to devour our souls by whatever means he can, there is no time when he strains every sinew of his craft more fiercely to destroy us utterly and, if he can, to shake us from confidence in divine mercy than when he sees the end of life drawing near.

HERETICS OBJECT, first, that the rite of anointing was taken partly from the Valentinian heretics and partly from the pagans, as St. Irenaeus teaches in book 1, chapter 18; therefore the faithful should not use it. — I answer by first denying the antecedent: as St. Epiphanius observes, the Valentinians anointed with oil mixed with water, not the dying but the dead, so that such an unction might benefit them in place of baptism. For this they used certain Hebrew and unheard-of words, which inspired terror or astonishment in those who heard them. Likewise, the pagans did not anoint the dying but those already dead; consequently, the sacred rite of extreme unction has absolutely nothing in common with those profane anointings. Add that sacred unction ought not to seem objectionable because pagans used it; otherwise baptism, too, ought to be rejected, since pagans were accustomed to baptize the bodies of the dead as well as anoint them.

THEY OBJECT 2. As we have said, the power and efficacy of a Sacrament do not depend in any way on the minister’s faith. But the power of extreme unction is drawn from the minister’s own power and faith; for St. James says, The prayer of faith will save the sick person. By these words he indicates that the salvation and healing obtained through this unction arise from the efficacy of the minister’s prayer and faith. — I deny the minor premise; nor does the Apostle mean this. For there he is speaking not of the minister’s faith but of the Church’s, in whose faith the Sacraments are administered. In the words just cited, prayer of faith should not be understood as the minister’s subjective faith, but as objective faith: namely, the prayer used by the minister to confect this Sacrament contains the word of God and the mystery of faith, which the minister must at least hold objectively in mind while administering this Sacrament to the sick person. In this sense he must also have faith when administering the other Sacraments, that is, the intention of doing what the Church intends.

THEY OBJECT 3. The Sacraments of the New Law were instituted either for the remission of sin or for the conferral of sanctifying grace. But extreme unction serves neither purpose; therefore it is not a Sacrament of the New Law. The major premise is clear from what was said about the Sacraments in general. The minor premise is proved: extreme unction is not ordered to the remission of original sin, since that is already supposed to have been remitted through baptism; nor to actual mortal sin, which is blotted out through penance; nor to venial sin, which can be expiated not only through penance but also through many other remedies and means. Nor is it ordered to the conferral of grace, since first grace is conferred through baptism or restored through penance, while second grace is granted through reception of the Eucharist; consequently, extreme unction is useless for that purpose. — I deny the minor premise, and in reply to its proof I say that extreme unction is ordered both to the final remission of venial sins and likewise to an increase of final grace. The other Sacraments do not produce this effect in the same way, as we shall say in Question 3.

FINALLY, THEY OBJECT: If there were any foundation for this reasoning, it would be drawn especially from the Epistle of St. James. But this authority is of no weight, since that Epistle is of doubtful authenticity and it is not certain that St. James wrote it; therefore, etc. — I deny the minor premise: not only do the Councils of Laodicea, canon 59; Milevis, canon 7; the Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 47, to which St. Augustine subscribed; Florence; and Trent place that Epistle among the canonical Scriptures, but so do the holy Fathers, especially St. Athanasius in the Synopsis, Jerome in his Letter to Paulinus, Augustine in book 2 of On Christian Doctrine, and many others whom our Hiquaeus cites in his commentary on distinction 23, number 6.

Second conclusion. — THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION WAS INSTITUTED IMMEDIATELY BY CHRIST THE LORD, AND THIS TOOK PLACE AFTER HIS RESURRECTION. This conclusion consists of two parts, of which

The Doctor teaches the first part in distinction 23, number 7, where he says: This Sacrament is said to have been instituted by Christ.... James, however, was only the promulgator, or herald, of this Sacrament instituted by Christ. The Council of Trent also teaches this plainly, Session VII, On the Sacraments in General, canon 1, where it says: If anyone says that not all the Sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ our Lord, let him be anathema. And Session XIV, canon 1, On Extreme Unction: If anyone says that extreme unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James.... let him be anathema.

Theological reasoning also supports this truth: both because the power to institute Sacraments exceeds Apostolic and all created authority, since it belongs to God alone to employ an efficacious sign whose institution and application infallibly confer grace; and because, since Christ was the immediate founder of the Church, it was fitting that he be the immediate author and institutor of all the Sacraments. Thus, just as it was not in the power of Peter or James to establish a new article of faith, so the institution of a new Sacrament did not pertain to their power, but only the administration of those already instituted, in accordance with the Apostle’s words in 1 Corinthians 1: Let a man so regard us as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Finally, there is no stronger reason why this Sacrament should not have been instituted immediately by Christ than there is for the other Sacraments, especially since it is ordered to the remission of sin, and it belongs to God alone to remit sins. Add that if Christ had to confer on one of the Apostles the power to institute this Sacrament, there is no apparent reason why he would have given that power to James rather than to Peter, the visible head of the Church, or to the whole Apostolic College. Nor is it an objection that only St. James among the Apostles speaks of such sacramental unction: he does not speak of it as its institutor and author, but only as its promulgator and herald—the first to promulgate this Sacrament in writing, whereas previously it had been promulgated only by others orally. — Therefore, what the Master of the Sentences asserts, following Hugh of St. Victor, namely that this Sacrament was instituted by the Apostles, is not to be understood, says Estius in distinction 23, section 3, as the original institution by which a law or any decree is enacted by a lawgiver’s or prince’s authority and power. Rather, it means the promulgation of a law or decree—not in just any way, but as though someone were the first among men to hand down and commend this Sacrament to posterity in writing. In this sense, one may say that he is in a way the institutor of this Sacrament. For we read that certain things were instituted by Roman pontiffs: by Linus, for example, that no woman should enter a church unless her head were veiled; by Alexander, that only bread and wine mixed with water should be offered at Mass; by Victor, that holy Easter should be celebrated on Sunday; and other things by others, which are nevertheless partly of divine and partly of Apostolic institution. But because these pontiffs promulgated them in written law, or restored them to use when they had fallen into neglect, they are said to have instituted them. Certainly, one can no more say that James properly instituted this Sacrament because he wrote something like its law in his Epistle than one can say that Peter instituted the sacrament of baptism when, in his first sermon, he spoke to the people as if commanding them: “Let each of you be baptized,” Acts 2, etc. Just as in the latter case there was only a promulgation, with exhortation and commendation of the Sacrament, so it was in the former. So says Estius.

The second part is also proved, namely, that the sacrament of extreme unction was instituted only after the Resurrection of Christ the Lord: first, because this Sacrament presupposes in its ministers the power to remit sins, as well as episcopal authority by which the oil is blessed so that it may be the proper and suitable matter of this Sacrament. But Christ the Lord conferred full power to remit sins on the Apostles only after his Resurrection, when he said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them: second, because the sacrament of extreme unction completes and consummates the sacrament of penance and presupposes its effect with respect to the remission of mortal sin. Consequently, it was fitting that its institution presuppose the institution of the sacrament of penance, which took place only after the Resurrection. Finally, since this Sacrament is the proximate disposition for attaining glory, there appears to have been no need to institute it except at the time when access to eternal happiness was to be opened to people through Christ’s triumphant Ascension.

YOU WILL SAY: The Council of Trent, chapter 1, On Extreme Unction, says that this Sacrament was intimated in Mark 6, where we read of the disciples sent by Christ to preach that they anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. But this indication was a true institution, since there are indicated there the matter of this Sacrament, namely oil; its subject, namely the sick person; and its effect, namely restored health. Therefore, etc. This is confirmed by the authority of the Doctor, who, speaking of extreme unction in In IV Sent., distinction 23, question 1, number 5, says: “It is said to have been instituted in James 5, Is anyone among you sick? etc. But although he promulgated that Sacrament there, it is better to say that it was instituted by Christ: for we read in Mark 6 that the Apostles anointed many sick people with oil and they were healed. It is clear, however, that they did this only by the power of Christ, who had instituted that efficacious unction.” By these words the Doctor signifies that this Sacrament was instituted at that time. — I deny the minor premise; for the unction used by the Apostles in Mark 6 was ordered not so much to the salvation of the soul as to the health of the body, and consequently was not properly sacramental. Moreover, it was performed by the Apostles before they were priests. Finally, it was conferred indiscriminately on all, both the faithful who were baptized and unbelievers who were not baptized. Hence, when the Council of Trent says that this Sacrament was intimated in Mark, it means only that it was then prefigured and foreshadowed—in the way that the baptism of Christ the Lord was prefigured in the baptism of John, because the latter was its shadow and figure. In reply to the confirmation, I say that in that passage the Doctor merely follows the more common opinion of the authors of that time, who argued that extreme unction was instituted not by St. James but by Christ the Lord, since Christ the Lord indicated it in Mark 6; whether Christ instituted it there or only later, the Doctor does not address. That this assertion of ours agrees with his teaching is clear from distinction 24, where in number 2 he says: The priest has two spiritual powers: namely, to confect the Eucharist and to absolve the penitent. They are not one power, because one seems to have preceded the other: God conferred the first at the Supper, but the second only after the Resurrection, John 20. Since, then, the Doctor holds that Christ the Lord did not confer the full and complete priesthood on the Apostles on the night of the Supper, but only a partial priesthood—namely, the power to consecrate his true and real Body, but not the power over the mystical body with respect to remitting sins, a power that the Apostles received only in John 20 and after Christ’s Resurrection—it follows that he likewise teaches that extreme unction was instituted only after the Resurrection, since it is ordered to the remission of sin. Nor is it an objection that the Evangelists did not mention the institution distinctly and expressly, as they did that of the other Sacraments. They recount and commend the institution of certain Sacraments because these pertain to salvation, to the necessity of salvation, or to the Church’s order and state and its distinction from others. But the sacrament of extreme unction is not absolutely necessary for salvation, nor for the Church’s order and state. Therefore, it should not seem surprising that the Apostles made no express mention of its institution: they judged that Tradition, whether promulgated in writing or by word of mouth, sufficed for this. For it is clear that Christ the Lord prescribed many things orally to his Church through the Apostles. This may be gathered from the first chapter of Acts, where it is said that Christ appeared to the disciples for forty days and, while dining with them, spoke of the kingdom of heaven, instructing and teaching them about all matters pertaining to the governance of the Church. Add that Christ also prescribed many things and the Apostles preached them that were not written down: Andrew, Thomas, and Bartholomew preached many things without writing them. Extreme unction, however, was not only preached by the Apostles but also committed to writing and promulgated by James; that writing presupposes that this sacramental unction had been instituted orally by Christ and preached by the Apostles.

NOTE 1. Or rather, it should be recalled from what has been said several times already that there are two kinds of matter in the sacraments consisting in the use of a sensible thing, namely, remote and proximate matter. Remote matter is that which is taken up so as to be a sensible sign of the grace conferred through the sacrament: thus natural water is called the remote matter of baptism. Proximate matter, however, is the application and use of that same thing; thus in baptism the actual washing is considered the proximate matter. Moreover, all Catholics agree that the remote matter of the sacrament of extreme unction is olive oil blessed by a bishop: for so the Council of Florence defines in its Decree of Union, as does also the Council of Trent, ch. 1, On Extreme Unction, where, from the words of St. James, it gathers what the Church says and teaches from Apostolic Tradition, namely, “the matter, form, proper minister, and effect of this salutary sacrament. For the Church understood the matter to be oil blessed by a bishop; for unction most aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which the sick person’s soul is invisibly anointed.” St. James signified this very thing when he said, “anointing him with oil”; for although he does not specify the kind of oil, nevertheless by this manner of speaking common and usual oil is understood, which is only olive oil, as the Council of Florence expressly declared in the Decree of Eugenius. Hence the Roman Catechism, treating of extreme unction, n. 9, says that this oil is “a liquid expressed not from just any fat and thick substance, but only from olive berries”; and it adds: “This matter most aptly signifies what is effected inwardly in the soul by the power of the sacrament. For just as oil greatly helps to soothe bodily pains, so the power of the sacrament lessens the soul’s sadness and pain. Moreover, oil restores health, offers gladness, and provides nourishment for a lamp; and it is especially suited to restoring the strength of a wearied body. All these things declare what is effected in the sick person by divine power through the administration of this sacrament.” The difficulty, however, is whether this oil must necessarily be blessed by a bishop, so that the blessing of a simple priest would not suffice for this purpose.

NOTE 2. All theologians likewise agree that the proximate matter of extreme unction is the unction itself, or the application of the oil, as is clear from the aforesaid words of the Council of Trent, and indeed also from the words of St. James: “anointing him with oil.” Theological reasoning also supports this truth. For the matter of a sacrament that consists in use is nothing other than the use itself, or the application of the remote matter to a suitable subject. But extreme unction does not consist, like the Eucharist, in permanent matter; rather, like baptism and confirmation, it consists in use. There can be no other use in extreme unction than unction, by which the oil is applied to a suitable subject; and consequently the action itself is the proximate matter of this sacrament. Now the Council of Florence requires seven such anointings: the first on the eyes, on account of sight; the second on the ears, on account of hearing; the third on the nostrils, on account of smell; the fourth on the mouth, on account of taste; the fifth on the hands, on account of touch; the sixth on the feet, on account of walking; the seventh on the loins, on account of the pleasure that is active there. Although both hands are to be anointed, these two anointings are counted as one. The same applies to the eyes, nostrils, and feet. It is asked, however, whether those seven anointings are absolutely necessary for the integrity and validity of this sacrament, or whether some may lawfully be omitted even outside a case of necessity.

NOTE 3. The form of this sacrament is pronounced in various ways. For among the Latins the common form is expressed in these words: “By this holy unction, and by His most tender mercy, may God forgive you whatever you have sinned through sight,” or through another sense to which the unction itself is applied. This form is handed down in the Decree of Eugenius and is in practice throughout the universal Church. Nevertheless, some other forms of this sacrament are used by certain churches. For the Church of Milan, in the time of St. Ambrose, used this indicative form: “I anoint you with blessed oil in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, so that, prepared for battle like a soldier anointed for combat, you may overcome the powers of the air.” Thus St. Bonaventure reports, d. 23, a. 1, q. 4. A similar form is found in the sacramental book of the Venetians, confirmed by Leo X, where the form of extreme unction is expressed in these words: “I anoint you with holy oil, so that, protected by this anointing, you may stand firm against the hosts of the air, in the name of the Father.” Likewise, there is an ancient ritual praised by Menard in the observations appended to Gregory’s Sacramentary: “I anoint these eyes with blessed oil, so that whatever you have sinned by unlawful sight may be expiated by the anointing of this oil, through our Lord Jesus Christ. I anoint these ears with the liquid of consecrated oil, so that whatever has been committed through the harmful delight of hearing may be removed by spiritual medicine. I anoint these nostrils with consecrated oil, so that whatever harm has been incurred through excessive smelling may be cleansed by this remedy. I anoint these lips with the medicine of consecrated oil, so that whatever has been committed through idle or sinful speech may, by divine mercy, be expiated through this anointing.” And so on. In an ancient codex of Halitgarius, who lived around the year of Our Lord 820, the following form is found (as reported by Nicholas Serarius from the Library of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus at Würzburg): “I anoint you with blessed oil, so that, prepared for combat like soldiers, you may overcome the hosts of the air. Work, creature of oil, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, so that the unclean spirit may be hidden neither here nor in the limbs, nor in the marrow, nor in any joint of the limbs of this man; but may the power of Christ, the Son of the Most High God, who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever, work in him. Amen.” Finally, Arcudius, bk. 5, ch. 5, reports this form used by the Greeks: “Holy Father, Physician of souls and bodies, who sent your only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to heal every sickness and deliver from death, heal also this servant of yours from the bodily and spiritual infirmity in which he is held, and revive him through the grace of your Christ, by the power of the precious and life-giving Cross, by the prayers of our most holy Lady Mary, Mother of God and ever Virgin, by the patronage of the venerable incorporeal heavenly powers, the divine Virtues, of the honored and glorious Prophet, Forerunner, and Baptist John, of the illustrious and most celebrated Apostles, of the holy, glorious, and renowned victorious Martyrs, of our holy fathers, servants of God, and of the saints who have power to heal and did not accept a reward for healing: Cosmas and Damian, Cyril and John, Pantaleon and Hermolaus, Serapion and Diomedes, Photius and Anicetus, the holy and righteous parents of God Joachim and Anne, and of all the Saints. For you are our God, the fountain of healings, and we offer glory to you, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and always and for ever and ever. Amen.” It is asked, then, which of these forms is to be preferred.

First conclusion. — THE PROPER MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION IS OLIVE OIL BLESSED BY A BISHOP; YET THE EPISCOPAL BLESSING IS NOT SO ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT, BY DISPENSATION OF A BISHOP OR THE SUPREME PONTIFF, A SIMPLE PRIEST CANNOT BLESS IT. This is the more common opinion as to its three parts, of which

First, namely, that the matter of this sacrament must be olive oil, is already established from the first Note. For this is evident from the Church’s constant Tradition and the definition of the Councils, and is gathered from the Letter of St. James, where he says, “anointing him with oil.” No other a priori reason for this is available than the will and institution of Christ the Lord, which is made known to us through the judgment of the Church and its practice, which has never changed. It is gathered a posteriori from the suitability and analogy of oil to the effect of extreme unction: for oil soothes pains, alleviates sickness, brings clarity, imparts strength to the limbs, nourishes a flame, and signifies joy and abundance in Scripture. Hence Theophylact, on Mark, ch. 6: “Just as oil, he says, is useful for labors, nourishes light, and produces gladness, so it signifies the mercy of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which we are freed from labor, and the light, joy, and spiritual gladness that we receive.” All these things, as we noted above from the Roman Catechism, wonderfully befit extreme unction. Nor is there an objection, as we said, in the fact that St. James did not say “anointing with olive oil”; for oil spoken of simply, by the force of the word and common manner of speaking, signifies only the oil expressed from olive berries. In the same way, when water is said to be the matter of baptism, natural and elemental water is understood; and when bread and wine are said to be the matter of the Eucharist, by the force of common speech and meaning, wheat bread and wine from the vine are understood. It must nevertheless be observed that pure oil is not so necessary as the matter of this sacrament that, if some balsam were mixed into it, the matter would thereby be invalid¹, provided that by such a mixture the nature of the oil, or its common use, is not corrupted. For just as the mixture of water, or of another liquid that does not corrupt the nature of wine, does not prevent it from being the proper matter of the chalice to be consecrated, so neither does the mixture of balsam or another liquid that does not destroy the nature of oil destroy the matter of extreme unction. Nor is there an objection here in the fact that the gloss on Canon 2, d. 95, asserts that chrism suffices for extreme unction, or that Innocent I, in his Letter to Decentius, ch. 8, indicates that extreme unction was customarily performed with chrism. I answer that both the gloss and Innocent, by the name chrism, understand unction, or designate the proximate matter, not the remote matter, of this sacrament; for chrism in Greek means unction in Latin. Hence in the Roman Pontifical, when the oil of the sick is blessed, it is called chrism: “May it be,” it says, “your perfect chrism, O Lord, for us.” Nor does the Doctor contradict this when he says, d. 23, n. 5: “There need not be anything compounded of oil and balsam here, as in the matter of confirmation, because confirmation is for the confession and strengthening of faith; and therefore in the confirmed person not only is purity of conscience, signified by oil, required, but also the fragrance of good reputation, signified by balsam. But here, since one must soon depart from this life to its end, a pure conscience suffices.” By these words the Doctor signifies only that it is not necessary for any balsam or anything else to be mixed in. He also proves this by the suitability he adduces: for it is certain that chrism signifies the brightness of conscience, and therefore the mixture of balsam does not detract from this sacrament’s efficacy and signification.

The second part is proved, namely, that the oil must necessarily be blessed. For this is expressly decreed in the Councils cited above and taught by Innocent III in the aforesaid Letter to Decentius. The venerable Bede teaches in his commentary on Mark, ch. 6, that this practice derives from Apostolic Tradition: “It is clear, he says, that the custom of this holy Church was handed down by the Apostles themselves: that the possessed, or any other sick people, should be anointed with oil consecrated by pontifical blessing.” The Doctor, n. 5, adds this reason for the practice: “An episcopal consecration is necessary in order for it to be suitable matter; for, commonly, among sacraments consisting in use, baptism alone does not require matter specially consecrated, because Christ, by the touch of His most pure flesh when He willed to be baptized by John, consecrated it all—that is, dedicated it to this use.” The Seraphic Doctor supplies another reason, d. 23, a. 1, q. 3, drawn from the end of this sacrament: “Here, he says, grace is given that heals spiritual infirmities, and grace is given that orders one toward perfect health, which is glory. Therefore it must be signified by oil, which is curative by reason of healing, and by consecrated oil by reason of its ordering one toward the highest healing; and by simple, unmixed oil, because a good conscience is required and suffices for entrance into glory.”

YOU WILL SAY: St. James says only, “anointing him with oil, and does not add with blessed oil”; therefore simple, natural oil is the essential and sufficient matter of this sacrament. — I deny the inference. For although St. James did not explicitly and clearly signify that the oil must be blessed, it suffices that this be gathered from Apostolic Tradition, handed down to us through the Church’s constant practice. For the distinct matter of all the sacraments is not expressly handed down in Sacred Scripture, but is gathered from Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s practice.

YOU WILL PRESS: The matter of extreme unction must be reasoned about in the same way as that of the other sacraments. But we gather that the matter of baptism is natural water, even though it is not blessed, because Scripture signifies only that water is required for baptism, with no mention made of a required blessing; therefore the same must be said of the matter of this sacrament. — I deny the major premise. For the analogy between oil and water is not the same: first, because, as the Doctor said above, natural water was specially dedicated by Christ the Lord to the effect of baptism through contact with His most pure flesh, when He Himself was baptized, whereas the case of oil is different; second, because, since baptism is a sacrament so necessary, it was fitting that its matter be common and readily available, lest very many infants die without baptism, and thus be condemned, for lack of blessed water. But since extreme unction is not absolutely necessary for salvation, it was fitting that its matter be blessed, for the reverence and dignity of the sacrament itself, as well as for a more suitable signification.

Finally, the third part is proved, namely, that by dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff or a bishop, it may sometimes suffice for the sacrament of extreme unction that the oil be blessed by a simple priest. For this is clear from the most ancient custom of the Greek Church, in which simple priests bless the oil of the sick by commission of the bishop. Clement VIII approved this custom, admonishing in his instruction on the rites of the Greeks, found in vol. 3 of the Bullarium, that their presbyters are not to be compelled to receive oil blessed by a bishop, because by an ancient custom of the Eastern Church presbyters may bless the oil of the sick by commission of the bishop. Arcudius, bk. 5, ch. 2, near the end, reports and examines this custom and approval: “Among the Greeks,” he says, “the bishop alone prepares chrism, and it is kept for a long time; but the oil of the sick is blessed at the time when the sick person is to be anointed. So, too, water and the oil of the catechumens are blessed when someone is baptized among the Greeks. The reason why it is not kept is that, since it is entrusted to presbyters, they can consecrate it whenever need arises and administer it at the same time; whereas they keep chrism longer because they lack the authority to prepare it. All this is also indicated and approved by that instruction of Clement VIII, addressed to the Latin bishops, where the heading on this subject reads: Concerning the holy oil of the catechumens and of the sick. It then continues: ‘Greek presbyters are not to be compelled to receive from Latin diocesan bishops the holy oils other than chrism. Since these oils are prepared or blessed by them, according to their ancient rite, at the very time when they administer the oils and sacraments; but they are to receive chrism, which, even according to their own rite, can be blessed only by a bishop.’ So it says. Although the bishops, with the approval of the Roman Pontiff, entrusted the blessing of this oil to presbyters, and therefore it is not kept in reserve, the Greek bishops themselves did not deprive themselves of this jurisdiction of theirs; rather, once each year, like the Latins, on Thursday of Holy Week, with solemn pomp and ceremony after the Mass, they consecrate it. Those present at the divine offices then anoint themselves with it. Whether this is done rightly or rashly, we shall endeavor to make clear from what follows. First, however, as the order of discussion seems to require, let us treat of the number of ministers so far mentioned.” Arcudius there also observes that this faculty of blessing the oil came to the presbyters of the Eastern Church by concession of the bishops. For just as, he says, the bishops, who were continually occupied with their office, performed many things themselves that they later entrusted to presbyters, either because they were occupied with other duties, or were especially unskilled in preaching sacred matters, or because they could not conveniently visit the whole diocese on account of its size and the great number of people receiving the faith of Christ, so, I think, the same should be said of the blessing of this oil.

YOU WILL ASK: Was the rite of blessing oil instituted by Christ? — I answer, no. For this can be proved neither by any authority of Scripture, nor by Councils or Tradition. Hence, although Christ the Lord ordained that the matter of this sacrament be blessed, He nevertheless left the rite and manner of blessing to the Church’s discretion, so that it might prescribe as it pleased the prayers serving that blessing. It follows that the oil of the catechumens is sufficient matter for this sacrament, since it differs from the oil of the sick only in its different blessing, which does not essentially alter the matter. Nevertheless, except under urgent grave necessity, the sacrament of extreme unction is not to be administered with the very oil intended for anointing catechumens: first, because of the custom of the Church, which does not use the oil of the catechumens for anointing the sick, but wishes both oils to be kept for anointing the sick and the catechumens in separate vessels; second, because the matter of extreme unction is not oil consecrated by just any blessing, but oil consecrated by the blessing the Church has appointed for blessing the oil of the sick, which is entirely different from the blessing by which chrism, or the oil of the catechumens, is consecrated.

Second conclusion. — THE PROXIMATE MATTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION, OUTSIDE A CASE OF INDECENCY OR NECESSITY, MUST BE A SEVENFOLD ANOINTING; BUT WHEN A CASE OF NECESSITY IS URGENT, A SINGLE ANOINTING CAN SUFFICE.

The first part is established from the Council of Florence, which assigns these seven anointings: “On the eyes, on account of sight; on the ears, on account of hearing; on the nostrils, on account of smell; on the mouth, on account of taste or speech; on the hands, on account of touch; on the feet, on account of walking; on the loins, on account of the pleasure active there.” The Seraphic Doctor, d. 23, a. 2, q. 3, had indeed prefaced the following reason for this arrangement: “Since, he says, this sacrament is principally ordered to the remission of venial sins, as is suggested by the text of Blessed James, and venial sins are committed by the soul according to its union with corrupt flesh, and this takes place through the powers by which it is united to the body as an organic body, therefore it is right that an external remedy be applied for the remission of such sins, in accordance with what is sensible around the organs of those powers. Now there are three powers of the soul by which the body is governed, instructed, and nourished, and by which it is related to the external world, namely, the sensitive, generative, and locomotive powers; therefore the organs of these powers ought to be anointed. And since there are five organs serving the five senses, namely, the mouth, eyes, nostrils, ears, and hands, while the loins serve the generative power and the feet the locomotive power, these seven parts are therefore anointed. Thus it is clear that neither the whole body nor one particular part is to be anointed. The universal Church retains this rite of anointing (the Roman Catechism says, n. 21), and it also suits the nature of this sacrament very well, for it is like a remedy. ‘And since, in bodily diseases, although the whole body is affected, treatment is nevertheless applied only to that part from which the disease flows as from its source and origin, therefore not the whole body but those members in which the power of sensation is especially prominent are anointed; the loins too, as the seats of pleasure and lust; and then the feet, which are the beginning of our walking and movement from place to place.’” Nevertheless, some anointings may be omitted; indeed, for the sake of propriety, the anointing of the loins in women must be omitted. This is clear from the Roman Ritual approved by the authority of Paul V. Consequently, those seven anointings are not absolutely necessary to the integrity of this sacrament.

The second part is therefore proved, namely, that when grave necessity presses, a single anointing alone suffices: first, because the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 1, when explaining the matter and form of this sacrament, assigns no fixed number of anointings as determinate matter. Although Florence assigns seven, namely, on the five senses, and in addition on the feet and loins, since it is nevertheless clear that the anointing of the loins must sometimes be omitted, just as in some churches the anointing of the feet is omitted, it follows that this sevenfold anointing is not required for the sacrament. Second, because the Mechlin Pastoral, on the sacrament of unction, can. 9, as well as the Passau Pastoral, can. 11, advise that, when plague is raging or a contagious disease presses, anointing be performed on the organ of the sense most readily accessible. This is by decree and judgment of the Faculty of Louvain, in these words: “In contagious diseases and when plague is raging, to avoid danger, it suffices to anoint the organ of the sense most exposed or uncovered for anointing, saying: ‘By this holy unction, and by His most tender mercy, may God forgive you whatever you have sinned through sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and walking.’ Then the prayers that should be said before and after may be read devoutly in the church before the Blessed Sacrament.” Third, because the Church has not disapproved the custom of the Greeks, who, in conferring the sacrament of extreme unction, do not observe that sevenfold anointing but anoint only the head, breast, hands, and feet, as Arcudius reports, ch. 7, where he says: “They differ from the Latins in this: the Latins,” he says, “explicitly anoint the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and hands, on account of the five senses; next the loins, where concupiscence has its seat; and finally the feet, on account of the locomotive power and its exercise. I willingly report this for the Greeks, so that they may carefully consider this manner of anointing, if perhaps they wish to imitate it, since it is the safest. In women, propriety seems to require that the loins not be anointed. The Greek priests, however, anoint the sick person’s forehead, chin, and both cheeks, so that an anointing in the form of a cross appears to be made on the head; then the breast, then the hands on both sides, and finally the feet.” This is not only common among the Greeks, but also familiar in certain Latin churches. For, as Albert the Great observes, In IV Sent., d. 23, a. 16, ad 2, in certain churches only the extremities are anointed, such as the mouth, nostrils, eyes, and ears; others, in addition to these, anoint the shoulders, breast, and loins. Hence Nicholas Serarius, On Extreme Unction, ch. 9, asserts that in the church of Würzburg the anointing of the loins is omitted, and proves that however it is done, the sacrament remains complete: first, because certain forms, such as the Ambrosian, Venetian, and some others, do not mention these parts individually; second, if the organs of the senses had necessarily to be anointed as pertaining to the essence of the sacrament, since in essential matters one thing cannot take the place of another, then, if the mouth or lips were anointed instead of the tongue or palate—as in fact they are anointed, lest anointing otherwise provoke nausea—it would not be a sacrament. Or, if someone’s eyes had been removed, or ears or nostrils cut off, and anointing those parts were necessary to the essence of the sacrament, theologians would not direct that the ends of the severed parts themselves, or the neighboring parts, be anointed, when in fact they do direct this. Third, although the ancient theologians teach that those parts are suitably anointed, they do not claim that it cannot be done otherwise, except for Durandus, Michael de Calonio, and Soto. The Council of Florence does indeed enumerate these parts, but as those already customary, not as simply pertaining to the nature of the sacrament, since it also includes the loins, which by common consent are not necessarily anointed. Serarius therefore infers that even the heart alone, from which is the cesspool of all sins, or the head alone, where the windows of the vices—the senses—are, or any other anointed part of the body, would suffice for the effect of unction, since in Scripture the name “flesh” signifies the seedbed of all vices. Finally, Serarius prudently warns that the established custom must not be changed or abolished by anyone’s private judgment. Thus Arcudius reports him, ch. 9. This is confirmed by the analogy between the sacrament of extreme unction and the sacrament of penance. Although the integrity of confession may seem necessary in itself for the latter, nevertheless, when imminent danger of death is to be feared, or inability to speak occurs, sacramental absolution can be conferred without such a prior integral confession, provided the penitent gives definite signs indicating that he seeks absolution; indeed, even when trustworthy people testify that the sick person desired a confessor. Therefore, it was likewise fitting that the sacrament of extreme unction be instituted so that in a case of necessity a single anointing alone would suffice to confer sacramental grace, although perhaps it would not suffice outside such a case of necessity. It must be observed, however, that in that case the words of the form must mention the five senses; for if only one sense were mentioned, for example sight, the form would not signify the sufficient effect for conferring which this sacrament was instituted, namely, grace by which sins of the five senses, or sins committed through them, are remitted. If, however, no sense were expressly named in the form, as in the Ambrosian and Venetian forms reported above, it is sufficiently probable that it would still suffice, since by the words contained in those forms the entire effect of the sacrament is still sufficiently signified, namely, the remission of sins committed through the senses.”

Third conclusion. — THE PROPER FORM OF THE SACRAMENT OF UNCTION IS THAT USED BY THE LATIN CHURCH, NAMELY: “BY THIS HOLY UNCTION, ETC.” IT IS INDEED DEPRECATIVE; YET NOT SO NECESSARILY THAT THE SACRAMENT WOULD NOT BE VALIDLY CONFERRED UNDER AN INDICATIVE FORM.

The first part of this conclusion is clear from what has been said, since the Councils of Florence and Trent, ch. 1, On Extreme Unction, approve this form, and the most ancient rituals contain it; from these it appears that the Latin Church has used this form by continuous Tradition. Nevertheless, I do not deny that the Greek form is likewise proper, since the Latin Church (which cannot err in the administration of the sacraments) does not disapprove but approves it; and, moreover, it scarcely differs from the form put forward by the Latin Church, since it too is expressed in the manner of a supplication or prayer. Nor is there an objection in the fact that this form, in precisely these words, is not found in Sacred Scripture; for it suffices that it be inferred from those words of St. James, “Let him summon the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him,” and so on. For this signifies that the form of this sacrament ought to signify its effect by way of supplication and prayer, as do both the Greek and Latin forms.

As for why this sacrament, more than the others, has a deprecative form, three grounds of suitability can be put forward, which the Seraphic Doctor draws from three sources: the recipient, the manner of healing, and the illness. “The first,” he says, “is on the part of the recipient, who, because he is weakened by illness, must therefore be strengthened by prayer. The second concerns the manner of healing, which is through devotion and the lifting of the soul to spiritual things; and since prayer above all stirs the soul toward this, therefore, and so on. The third reason concerns the illness, since here sin is remitted through the ministry of a priest; and since in the remission of guilt the priest acts only by way of supplication, and therefore in his absolution too he uses a deprecative prayer, as was shown above, it follows that it was most fittingly instituted that unction not be performed without prayer, whose expression is the form of the sacrament.” The Roman Catechism gives a fourth reason, n. 11, saying: “Nor should anyone wonder,” it says, “why it was done so that the form of the other sacraments either signifies absolutely what it effects, as when we say, ‘I baptize you,’ or ‘I sign you with the sign of the cross’; or is pronounced as if by one commanding, as when in administering the sacrament of order it is said, ‘Receive power’; whereas this one form of extreme unction is completed in a certain supplicatory manner. For this was rightly established: although this sacrament is applied so that, besides the spiritual grace it bestows, it may also restore health to the sick, it does not always follow that the sick recover from their illnesses. For that reason its form is framed as a prayer, so that we may beseech God’s goodness for what the power of the sacrament does not ordinarily effect in a constant and perpetual manner. Proper rites are also employed in administering this sacrament. But most of them contain prayers, which the priest uses to beseech the sick person’s health; for there is no other sacrament that is completed with more prayers. And rightly so, since the faithful ought especially to be aided by pious observances at that time; therefore all others who happen to be present, and especially parish priests, ought to pray to God from the heart, and commend with all their effort the life and health of the one who suffers to His mercy.”

YOU WILL OBJECT: If the form of this sacrament were deprecative, it would follow that this sacrament produces grace, not by the work performed, but only by the work of the one acting, and consequently does not have the same power and efficacy as the sacraments of the New Law. But the consequent is false; therefore, so is that from which it is inferred. — I deny the consequence of the major premise. For although the form of this sacrament consists in a prayer, nothing prevents it from being able to produce grace by the work performed; for in order to produce grace in this way, it does not need the devotion of the minister or recipient, but derives all of this from the merits and institution of Christ. He was certainly able to raise the formula of prayer used in the administration of this sacrament to the efficacy and dignity of a sacrament of the New Law, just as He raised the marriage contract to the dignity and power of a sacrament of the New Law.

YOU WILL PRESS: That prayer which is made in administering this sacrament is called by St. James “the prayer of faith,” that is, one drawn from the merit of the minister’s faith; but the merit of this prayer depends on his disposition; therefore, and so on. — I answer the major premise: St. James calls this prayer the prayer of faith because it is conceived through supernatural faith and understood by faith alone, in the way in which St. Augustine, Tractate 80 on John, calls every sacramental word that operates together with an element a word of faith.

YOU WILL OBJECT 2: The sacraments of the New Law ought to have the same form throughout the universal Church; but the prayers and supplications pronounced by the Greek and Latin Churches are not the same, as is clear from the third Note; therefore such prayers ought not to be considered the proper form of this sacrament. — I distinguish the major premise: throughout the universal Church they ought to have a common form according to its essential signification, I grant; according to its accidental signification, I deny. Moreover, the forms of both Greeks and Latins are the same in essential signification, because each is ordered to signify the remission of venial sins as well as the recovery of spiritual and bodily health. The same must be said of the Ambrosian and Venetian forms. Although they are pronounced in the indicative mood, they do not thereby differ essentially from the other forms, since they are ordered to signify the same effect, namely, deliverance from bodily and spiritual infirmity.

Hence the proof of the second part is clear, namely, that a form expressed in indicative words is also valid, because this is established from the practice of the Church of Milan and Venice, which use a form expressed in indicative words when conferring this sacrament, and the Church has neither proscribed nor condemned the rite of those churches.

YOU WILL OBJECT 1: In the aforesaid forms of the Church of Milan and Venice, it can be understood that they are deprecative, since it is said, “so that, prepared like a soldier anointed for combat, you may overcome the powers of the air.” This is surely an optative expression, and means the same as if it were said, “I anoint you with sanctifying oil, wishing that by divine aid you may overcome the powers of the air.” For the word valeas is optative, and, joined with what follows, makes the form deprecative, because it adds the divine name as the principal cause, by whose power and help the sick person, anointed with holy oil, ought to fight bravely against the enemies who assail him in that final struggle; therefore these particular forms are not indicative. — I DENY the inference, and as to the antecedent I say that this form has the character of a supplication and prayer no more than the forms of the other sacraments, in which the name of God is likewise invoked. For if you except the Eucharist, all the sacraments are conferred with invocation of the most holy Trinity. Add that the words cited in the objection are sufficiently determined by the first words, “I anoint you with blessed oil,” and so on, which are certainly indicative and consequently make the whole form indicative.

YOU WILL OBJECT 2: The Council of Florence and the Council of Trent propose and approve only a deprecative form; therefore they disapprove the indicative form. — I DENY the inference. For the Councils propose the form that is in use throughout the Latin Church, though they do not proscribe the different rites of certain particular churches, which indeed use another form long tolerated by the universal Church or even approved by the Apostolic See. This is certainly clear by analogy: although the same rite for celebrating the Divine Office is prescribed for the universal Church, namely, the one usually observed in Rome, nevertheless many churches have their own particular rites that do not conform to the Roman rites.

YOU WILL OBJECT 3: St. James calls the form of extreme unction the prayer of faith; therefore that form must necessarily be deprecative. — I DENY the inference. For by “prayer of faith” one can understand any form sufficient for validly conferring this sacrament. In this sense, many forms of the other sacraments too are called prayers by the holy Fathers, and especially the form of the sacrament of penance, although it cannot itself be deprecative, since it is exercised by way of judgment.

Although these things are true, nevertheless it is certain that an indicative form cannot be used without mortal sin in those churches where such a practice does not prevail. For everyone is bound to conform to the practice of the universal Church, wherever the particular church to which he belongs has no contrary practice tacitly or expressly approved.

YOU WILL ASK I. What are the essential words of the form of this sacrament? — I answer 1: only these are essential: “May the Lord forgive you through the anointing”; for only by removing them, or at least some of them, is the sense intended by Christ in the form of this sacrament destroyed. This does not, however, prevent the whole form from having to be pronounced in order to satisfy the Church’s precept, outside a case of necessity.

Hence all theologians agree that an explicit invocation of the Trinity does not belong to the essence of this sacrament. Indeed, Suarez asserts, against some whom he cites, that it is not even necessary by precept. The reason is that this sacrament is neither a profession of faith, as baptism is, nor does any special reason for invoking the three divine persons arise in this sacrament; neither is it declared in the Councils or in the Roman Ritual, nor is there a common custom to that effect. Therefore no sufficient foundation can be adduced for asserting such an obligation by precept.

YOU WILL ASK 2. Is grace produced by each individual anointing together with its form? — I answer: concerning the solution of this little question, there are three principal opinions among theologians. The FIRST HOLDS that habitual grace is not conferred except by the extreme unction that is truly the last according to the minister’s intention, whether this sacrament is administered with five anointings, which alone belong to its essence, or with seven, which belong only to the sacrament’s integrity. So the Thomists commonly hold, with Soto, In IV Sent., d. 13, q. 1, last a., where he teaches that if the minister wishes to administer the sacrament through seven anointings, the effect will not be produced until after the seventh; but if through five, grace will be given only at the end of the fifth anointing. — But this opinion is rejected: first, because, if the last two of those seven anointings, namely, of the loins and feet, are not of the essence, as the Thomists also admit, the minister cannot by his intention prevent the sacrament from conferring its effect once it has been essentially completed by those five anointings. For as soon as a sacrament is perfect and essentially complete, it produces its effect, and that effect cannot be suspended by the minister’s private intention, which is not necessary for the validity of the sacrament; a general intention of doing what the Church does suffices. Second, because it could happen that a sick person received the whole sacrament as to its essence and yet did not receive grace—for example, if, after the five anointings were completed, the sick person died before receiving the last two anointings, after which alone the minister intends the sacrament to achieve its effect. But this is altogether absurd, since sacraments are held to be fit and, in first act, to have the power to produce their effect as soon as they are essentially complete and perfect, just as natural causes produce their effect once all the prerequisites for action are in place. Therefore, when sacraments are essentially complete, they produce their effect independently of the minister’s private intention. Third and finally, if the minister could suspend the effect of this sacrament after seven anointings, although the last two are not essential, for the same reason he could suspend it after a twentieth or thirtieth anointing, since these are outside the number of the five essential anointings in the same way as the sixth and seventh anointings. But this cannot be said, otherwise the minister could by his private intention suspend the essence and efficacy of the sacrament; and so on.

The SECOND OPINION teaches that grace is conferred by this sacrament as soon as all those five anointings, with their corresponding forms, have been completed and performed. So Suarez, disp. 11, sect. 2, and several other modern theologians. — But this opinion is likewise rejected: first, because, as we have said, the five anointings are not so necessary to the essence of this sacrament that sometimes a single one does suffice; second, because, if the effect of the sacrament were not conferred until the last anointing and pronouncement of the form were completed, it would follow that all the partial forms should not be pronounced until the last anointing is completed. For every earlier pronouncement would be useless, since it would have no effect corresponding to it, either when it was pronounced in the act or when the form corresponding to the last anointing was pronounced. For a sacrament consisting in use does not cause anything once it has passed, if it leaves behind no effect through whose power grace may be conferred. But when the last anointing is made and the form corresponding to it is pronounced, the prior anointings are no longer in act, nor does any effect produced by them remain; and neither the last anointing nor its form essentially contains the preceding anointings and forms. Therefore the preceding forms would have been pronounced uselessly before this last anointing. Finally, because all those individual anointings are not ordered to one indivisible effect. For each anointing with its corresponding form has essentially its own determinate subject, namely, an organ of sense. Hence, because the organs that are instruments of sin differ, different anointings are made and various prayers and forms are pronounced. These have complete meaning and consequently have the complete formal character of a sacrament with respect to the organ of sense that is anointed and toward which the pronounced form is directed. Therefore it must likewise have its own effect; for when the matter and form of a sacrament are essentially complete, the effect must follow.

Accordingly, the third opinion seems more probable: it affirms that through each anointing an individual degree of sanctifying grace is given, so that just as there are five partial anointings and an equal number of corresponding partial forms, there seem to be five distinct degrees of grace, which together constitute the adequate effect of this sacrament. This indeed seems to be the opinion of the Doctor cited, d. 23, n. 7. For in replying to the second argument, namely, that extreme unction was not one sacrament because it has many matters and different forms, he says: “I say that it is one sacrament by unity of integrity, but not by unity of indivisibility, just as its effect is not one indivisibly, for it is not the remission of one venial sin, but one by the complete unity of the remission of all venial sins, so that when all have been remitted nothing remains to keep us from the enjoyment of blessedness, which may He grant us,” and so on. By these words the Doctor plainly signifies that this sacrament consists of several parts, each of which has the character of a sacrament and truly confers a degree of sanctifying grace. This is proved: first, because each anointing with its form has an essentially complete signification of the effect for signifying which it is employed, namely, the remission of those sins committed through sight, hearing, and so on. Therefore each anointing with its corresponding form has the character of a sacrament conferring grace. For by divine institution a sacrament effects what it signifies at the final instant of the pronouncement of the form and application of the matter, unless there is an obstacle on the part of the subject. Therefore, since each anointing with its corresponding form has a partial signification distinct from the others, it must also have its own partial effect distinct from the others. Second, because each Eucharistic species and each of the seven Orders confers a partial effect; therefore each anointing with its form must also confer a partial effect. The consequence is clear from the parity of reasoning that obtains especially between sacred unction and the sacrament of order. For the individual Orders confer a special grace and have their own effects precisely because they are partial with respect to the whole, and the individual Orders constitute only one total sacrament of order because each has distinct partial matter and form. The same holds for the individual anointings, which differ because they are applied to different parts and also have different corresponding formulas; therefore there is parity in both cases.

YOU WILL OBJECT 1. There is no parity, because the partial forms in the Eucharist are indicative, whereas in order they are imperative. Hence, although the former ought to have their own partial effect, the latter do not claim the same; for deprecative forms do not have the efficacy that must be posited for each individual part of the performance, but it suffices that it be posited for the time for which it is sought and when the relevant rationale is complete. — But, as Illicaeus, n. 89, rightly observes, it makes no difference to the efficacy of a sacramental form whether it is indicative, imperative, or deprecative, since all its efficacy is given by Christ’s institution and rests on God’s special assistance. He infallibly produces the effect signified by the form as soon as it obtains its complete sacramental meaning. The meaning of each formula is completed with respect to the anointing corresponding to it; therefore the effect signified by that form must then be posited.

YOU WILL OBJECT 2: The effect of a sacrament is indivisible; for grace is not given in parts, nor are sins remitted piecemeal, since God perfectly heals whoever He heals. Therefore the effect is not conferred partially through the individual anointings. — I DENY the antecedent. For it is no difficulty for grace to be conferred partially through those sacraments that are one only by unity of integrity, and not by indivisibility. The remission of all venial sins, which is proper to this sacrament, would not necessarily be connected in the same way as it is in the case of mortal sins. Hence, when mortal sins happen to be removed by this sacrament, it must be said that through the first partial grace, which is conferred in the first anointing, all those mortal sins are remitted, if any are present in the subject and are invincibly unknown to him.

NOTE 1. The present difficulty does not concern the fruits and effects that this Sacrament has in common with the other Sacraments of the New Law, such as the conferral of sanctifying grace or its increase. For since St. James said that through it the remission of sins takes place, if the recipient were still defiled by them, it is clear that sanctifying grace, or its increase, is also conferred, since in the ordinary course the remission of sin does not occur without the infusion of such grace. Hence the Council of Trent, canon 2 on extreme unction, says: If anyone says that the sacred anointing of the sick does not confer grace or remit sins … let him be anathema. The discussion, then, concerns only the effects proper to this Sacrament, all of which the Council of Trent declares in sess. XIV. For after saying in its preamble that the sacred Anointing is the firmest defense against the temptations of the devil, who, as death approaches, strains every nerve of his cunning to destroy us and devour our souls, it adds in ch. 2: The Anointing wipes away offenses, if any still remain to be expiated, and the remnants of sin; it relieves and strengthens the sick person’s soul, stirring up in him great confidence in divine mercy, so that he bears his trials more lightly; he resists more easily the temptations of the demon, who lurks at his heel, and sometimes attains bodily health, when this is expedient for the salvation of his soul. From these words theologians infer six effects of this Sacrament. The first, shared with the other Sacraments, is sanctifying grace. The second is a special help of grace, both for overcoming the temptations that arise at the point of death, for raising hope and confidence in God more easily and firmly, and for bearing the trials of illness and death with a steadfast spirit. The third is the remission of venial sins, which the Sacrament itself intends per se. The fourth is the remission of mortal sins, but secondarily and accidentally, if the sick person still has any that he invincibly ignores and does not think he is stained by. The fifth is the wiping away of the remnants of sin. The sixth, finally, is the restoration of bodily health, if this is expedient for the soul’s salvation. The question, then, is which of these effects is primary and chief.

NOTE 2. Theologians do not agree about the explanation of the remnants of sin, whose cleansing the Council of Trent counts among the effects of extreme unction. Some want these remnants to mean venial sins. But the Council’s own words refute them: it says that this Sacrament wipes away not only the remnants themselves but also offenses, if any remain. It is certain, however, that venial sins are truly offenses and truly sins. Others think that the remnants of sin mean the inclination and habit left by sin. But this is removed only through the frequent performance of contrary acts, and it sometimes persists even in justified men. Still others hold that the remnants of sin mean the sluggishness and torpor that hinder the doing of good, and the weakness of mind that hinders the contemplation and meditation of heavenly things. These remnants are not sins, but are left by original sin and subsequently strengthened by other sins. Hence St. Augustine, addressing his own soul in the last book of On the Trinity, ch. 17, says: “What,” he says, “is the reason you cannot see that unchanging light with a fixed gaze, unless it is weakness? And what causes this in you, unless it is iniquity?” Now this weakness of spirit, or torpor and difficulty in doing good, is removed by this Sacrament. Therefore it is called the spiritual healing of the soul, just as Baptism is its regeneration and Penance its spiritual resurrection from the death of sin.

NOTE 3. Every Sacrament has two effects: a common effect and a proper one. The common effect is that which belongs to all the Sacraments of the New Law, namely sanctifying grace or its increase; for all the Sacraments of the New Law produce grace in a recipient who places no obstacle. The proper effect is the one each Sacrament is ordered to produce. Moreover, a proper effect may be considered in two ways: first, as intended per se and directly; second, as intended accidentally, when the Sacrament produces an effect on the occasion of something else that is incompatible with the Sacrament’s proper effect. Finally, an effect intended per se and directly is twofold: principal and less principal, or intended primarily and secondarily. This is clear from the example of the Sacrament of Penance, whose proper effect, intended per se and directly in the first place, is the remission of mortal sins duly confessed; its effect intended per se and directly, but not in the first place, only secondarily, is the remission of venial sins. — Now theologians hold three opinions about the primary and chief effect of this Sacrament. Some, with St. Thomas, teach that the principal and most proper effect of extreme unction is an increase of grace that has the power to remove the aids to sin and to confer special helps against sluggishness and weakness in acting (III, q. 65, a. 1; also In I Sent., d. 23, q. 1, a. 2). Others, with Suárez, teach that this Sacrament’s proper and primary effect is to strengthen the sick person’s soul against the difficulties and temptations that arise at the point of death, by means of certain divine helps specially ordered to this end. Consequently, they say that it also remits every fault, mortal as well as venial, and the debt of punishment left by sin, not merely accidentally but in some way per se, though by secondary rather than primary intention, provided there is no obstacle in the subject. This occurs when the sick person receives this Sacrament while invincibly ignorant of a sin. The rest, finally, teach with the Subtle Doctor that the primary and principal effect of this Sacrament is the remission of venial sins, while the other effects are only less principal and secondary. Let the following conclusion, as the truer opinion, be set down in favor of this view:

First conclusion. — THE PRIMARY AND PRINCIPAL EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT IS THE INFUSION OF HABITUAL GRACE, INSOFAR AS IT HAS ATTACHED TO IT THE FINAL REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN, BUT NOT OF MORTAL SIN. THE LATTER, HOWEVER, IT ALSO REMITS ACCIDENTALLY. So teaches the Subtle Doctor, d. 23, n. 3. He had indeed given a fitting reason for this, saying: “It is fitting that one departing this life be finally absolved from venial sins, because, if not remitted, these would impede the attainment of glory; and they can remain unremitted until death, because a sinner sins almost continually in such sins.” As if he were saying: just as the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted to cleanse original sin, and Penance to wipe away mortal and venial sins committed throughout life while a person is in possession of reason, so it was fitting that a Sacrament be instituted to cleanse the venial sins that remain to be expiated by a person at the point of death, after the last Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, when, because of the extreme severity of illness and the agitation caused by imminent death, he is no longer in possession of freedom and consequently cannot perform the penance by which he could cleanse such sins. The Seraphic Doctor teaches the same in the place cited above. After saying, Extreme Unction is directed against venial sin and, accidentally, contributes to the relief of bodily illness and to the strengthening of the soul, he adds: “But one must note that venial sin is spoken of in two ways: either as one is in the state of the wayfarer, or as one is at the point of departure. If one speaks of it as one is in the state of the wayfarer, or on the journey, then venial illness is almost inseparable, or by a certain necessity recurring, and thus in some way incurable; therefore no medicine ought to be specially and principally ordered against it. Indeed, all the Sacraments are of some help toward its cure, more or less. But if we speak of it as the soul is at the point of departure, then such sins can be cured without recurrence; and since the soul can carry such burnable sins that would hold it back from glory, divine mercy instituted a remedy by which the soul could be cured as regards the remission of guilt and also part of the punishment. This is the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. The way this Sacrament cures venial sins corresponds to the kind of illness. Venial sin weighs down the soul, depressing it, so that it does not reach toward God with devotion and love as it should, because there is an inordinate turning there toward a changeable good and a lesser love of God, as Augustine touches on in the book of the Confessions. Therefore, since healing takes place directly through the contrary, that which lifts the burdened soul upward through devotion is what cures it. And because the body, which is subject to corruption, weighs down the soul, while this Sacrament is meant to lift the soul through devotion, in which the soul receives a certain vigor, and in which venial sins are always wiped away if they are present in the soul, with the result that bodily troubles are restrained if this is expedient for the soul, this Sacrament is principally for curing and relieving spiritual illness, namely venial sin; and accidentally it is for curing and relieving bodily illness, in a way that strengthens the soul which governs the body. Thus it is clear what in this Sacrament is the reality alone, what is the sign, and what is both reality and sign. The exterior anointing is the sign alone. The cure of venial sin is the reality alone. The stirring of devotion in the soul itself is both reality and sign, and is nothing other than a kind of spiritual Anointing.”

Further proof of the conclusion: The effect of a Sacrament must be considered primary when the sacramental form signifies and expresses it. But the form of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction used by the Roman and Greek Churches signifies and expresses the remission of sins. Therefore this is the Sacrament’s primary effect. The major premise is established: since the Sacraments of the New Law effect what they signify, and their signification pertains to their causality, there is no doubt that the effect must be considered primary which is most clearly declared and signified by the sacramental form, in which the very character and operation of the Sacrament chiefly consists. The minor premise is also clear from the words of both forms, Greek and Latin, in which the remission of sin is implored by the words Indulgeat, or pareat, or “May God remit whatever you have done wrong,” and so forth. — This is confirmed by the Council of Trent, which assigns this remission as the chief effect. For in ch. 2, where it treats of the Sacrament’s effects, it says: “For this reality,” it says, “is the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose Anointing wipes away offenses, if any remain to be expiated, and the remnants of sin.” In a later passage it names the other effects, so as to show that the remission it assigned first is the chief among this Sacrament’s effects. It repeats this in canon 3, saying: “If anyone says that the sacred anointing of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick … let him be anathema.” By these words it signifies that habitual grace is conferred in this Sacrament, whose immediate effect is the remission of sins itself. This is even clearer from the Roman Catechism, n. 27, where it says: “Pastors, then, shall teach that grace is bestowed by this Sacrament, which remits sins, especially lesser sins, commonly called venial. For deadly sins are removed by the Sacrament of Penance; this Sacrament was not instituted in the first place for the remission of graver crimes, since only Baptism and Penance effect this by their power,” and so forth. These words signify that the primary effect of this Sacrament is the remission of sin itself—not mortal and graver sin, but only venial sin.

Second proof: The effect from which the others flow and proceed as from a source must be considered the primary effect. But all the effects of this Sacrament assigned by the Council of Trent proceed from the remission of sin itself and necessarily presuppose it. For the languor of illness in the soul cannot be cured, nor can the remnants of sin be emptied away, unless sin itself is emptied away; nor can peace of mind at death be secured unless sin itself is erased, since sin makes the Lord’s coming and dreadful judgment appear; nor can anyone be successfully armed against the enemy of the human race so long as he contains sin within himself, through which the devil has some dominion over him; nor, finally, can full bodily health be restored unless the sin on account of which the illness perhaps occurred is cleansed. Therefore the removal of that sin must be considered the primary effect of this Sacrament. But the sin that must be removed through extreme unction is not mortal, as is clear both from the words of the Roman Catechism cited above and because mortal sin committed after Baptism can be wiped away only through Penance, as the Council of Trent teaches in sess. XIV, ch. 2: “For Penance was at all times necessary for people who had stained themselves with some mortal crime, in order to attain grace and righteousness.” So it says in ch. 1, and likewise in ch. 4, where it teaches: “At all times this act of Contrition was necessary in order to obtain forgiveness of sins; and in a person after Baptism it prepares him for the remission of sins only if it is joined with confidence in divine mercy and the resolve to fulfill the other requirements for receiving this Sacrament worthily,” and so forth. Further on it teaches that perfect contrition does not justify unless accompanied by the resolve to receive the Sacrament of Penance, and imperfect contrition does not justify without actually receiving the Sacrament. Again, Penance was instituted per se to be the second plank after shipwreck, by which a sinner can be saved from mortal sins. Nowhere is a third plank after shipwreck numbered among the Sacraments; consequently, the Sacrament of Extreme Unction cannot claim this power and title for itself. It would have both if it were ordered per se to the remission of mortal sin. Therefore it is ordered to the remission of such mortal sin only accidentally. Finally, mortal sins must be remitted together, since mortal sin is not remitted without the infusion of sanctifying grace, which in the ordinary course cannot coexist with mortal sin. But the sins that are to be remitted through extreme unction cannot all be remitted at once by the power of the Sacrament, since this Sacrament cannot be administered all at once except in a case of necessity. For the Anointing and the form, which implores remission of the sins committed through the corresponding faculty of the body, are repeated for anointing each part; consequently, each of these applications of the Sacrament must effect some remission of sin—not mortal sin, as was said, but only venial sin, because venial sin can coexist with sanctifying grace, and so one venial sin can be remitted separately from another.

YOU WILL SAY 1: Venial sin can be remitted without the infusion of grace and by various means, as we have said several times. Therefore it was not necessary to institute a Sacrament for the remission of that sin. — I distinguish the antecedent: venial sin can be remitted in this way when a person is still capable of performing penance and applying means ordered to the remission of such sin, I grant; when he is in a state in which he can neither elicit an act of penance nor apply such means, as happens at the final period of life, I deny.

YOU WILL PRESS: The sacred Rituals, as well as the Roman Catechism, n. 18, advise that this Sacrament be conferred while the recipient still has a sound mind and is in possession of reason, and thus while still in a state in which he can sin again and repent. Therefore this Sacrament was not instituted for the final remission of sin. — I deny the consequence. As for the antecedent, I say that these directions are given not because the Sacrament must necessarily be conferred then, but so that the recipient, through his greater disposition, may obtain a more abundant effect of the Sacrament and receive it with greater reverence. Moreover, the validity of this Sacrament does not require that its recipient still be in possession of reason, because it can achieve its effect even in a person deprived of his senses and reason and already near death.

YOU WILL INSIST: If this Sacrament had been instituted per se for the remission of venial sins, one would not have to wait for the final period of life to administer it; it ought also to be conferred in full health and repeated more often. But the consequence is false; therefore the inference from which it follows is false as well. — I deny the consequence of the major premise. For, as was said in the proof of the conclusion, this Sacrament is not ordered per se to the remission of venial sins without qualification, but only for the state in which the recipient cannot use another remedy to expiate venial sins. Although it is conferred on a person who still uses reason, and consequently can sin venially again, for the sake of a greater disposition, this is why the Sacrament does not bring about the final remission of sins: sins committed after its reception would not be remitted by its power, but by other means, namely Penance, confession, and sacramental absolution, which he can receive if he still has sufficient reason to be able to sin. For as long as a person can sin, he can also repent.

YOU WILL SAY 2: The Ambrosian and Venetian forms are sufficient and valid for the essence of this Sacrament; but they make no mention of the remission of sin, as the Roman and Greek forms do. Therefore this Sacrament is not ordered per se and primarily to the remission of sin. — I distinguish the minor premise: there is no explicit and distinct mention, as there is in the other forms, I grant; there is no implicit and equivalent mention, I deny. For the words “that he may be prepared for combat like a soldier” signify sanctifying grace, which removes the obstacle of sin. By reason of this grace, not only is actual grace granted for winning a victory over the enemy, but also final innocence and purity from all sins that could weigh down the soldier and make him less worthy of divine protection.

The second part is proved: although this Sacrament is not ordered per se to the remission of mortal sins by the force of its proper institution, it nevertheless remits them accidentally, namely when the sick person has such sins of which he is in good faith and invincibly ignorant. For although this Sacrament is ordered per se only to conferring second grace—that is, to conferring an increase of sanctifying grace—and presupposes that the person has already been cleansed from mortal sin by the Sacrament of Penance or by perfect Contrition, nevertheless, secondarily and accidentally it can sometimes also confer first grace and wipe away mortal sins, if sacramental confession was invalid through no fault of the sick person, who is otherwise invincibly unaware that he is in a state of mortal sin and is at least attrite for those sins in general. This is gathered clearly enough both from the words of St. James cited above, “If he is in sins, they will be forgiven him,” and from those of the Council of Trent, ch. 2: “It wipes away offenses, if any remain to be expiated,” and finally from the words of the form itself: “May the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned.” Since these words are indefinite and without any restriction, they can also be understood of mortal sins in the manner already explained, namely secondarily and accidentally. — St. Augustine also signified this in Sermon 215, On Time, where he says: “Whenever any illness comes upon someone, let the sick person receive the Body and Blood of Christ and then anoint his body, so that what is written may be fulfilled: ‘If anyone among you is ill, let him call for the presbyters of the Church, who will anoint him.’” In this argument the holy Doctor presupposes that reception of the Eucharist precedes the administration of Extreme Unction. Since reception of the Eucharist presupposes grace in the soul, as it is a Sacrament of the living, the same must also be said of Extreme Unction; consequently, it is said to be directly and per se a Sacrament of the living. By accident, however, and as it were indirectly, it can also be called a remedy and antidote for the dead, as was said in its proper place of the other four Sacraments. Our Doctor also expressed this in the place cited above, when he says that no one can worthily receive this Sacrament unless he is in grace, for this Sacrament is not a remedy for acquiring grace, since only Baptism and Penance serve that purpose. By these words the Doctor signifies that only these two Sacraments are ordered per se to the remission of mortal sin, while the other five are ordered to it only indirectly and accidentally, insofar as the habitual grace they effect as Sacraments is incompatible with mortal sin.

YOU WILL SAY: This Sacrament is ordered per se to the remission of the sin that may be present conditionally, for St. James says: “If he is in sins, they will be forgiven him.” But if the sin that may be present conditionally is mortal, there is no room for a conditional statement about venial sins, since St. James knew very well that scarcely anyone is free from such sins for even a short time. For he says in ch. 2: “We all offend in many things.” Therefore he must be speaking of mortal sins, and consequently he holds that this Sacrament is ordered per se, and not only accidentally, to the remission of mortal sin. — I deny the major premise. For the particle (if) is not always conditional, nor does it introduce doubt; sometimes it is absolute, especially when joined to a thing that has happened. This is clear from Cicero’s first oration against Catiline, where he says, “If these things are exposed, if they burst forth”: he does not doubt that they have been exposed and brought to light, but takes them as established so that Catiline may change his conduct. Hence, in reply to the minor premise, I say that St. James spoke in this way to signify that this Sacrament is ordered to the remission of venial sins on the supposition that they have not already been remitted by the Sacrament of Penance or the Eucharist, or by sacramentals. This is much the same sense in which it is usually said of each Sacrament that it infallibly produces its effect, provided there is no obstacle on the part of the recipient.

YOU WILL ASK: What should be thought about the other spiritual effects and fruits of this Sacrament? — I answer that the Roman Catechism explains them clearly and excellently in n. 28. After declaring this Sacrament’s primary benefit, namely the remission of sin, it adds: “Another benefit of the sacred Anointing is that it frees the soul from the languor and weakness it contracted from sin, and from all the other remnants of sin. The most fitting time for this healing is when we are afflicted by a grave illness and the danger of death is imminent. For nature has implanted in man a fear of nothing in human affairs so much as death. The memory of past deeds greatly increases this fear, especially when the gravest accusation of our conscience presses upon us; for, as it is written: ‘The fearful will remember their sins, and their iniquities will stand against them as accusers.’ — Next, the thought and concern that soon we must stand before the tribunal of God, who will pronounce a most just sentence upon us in keeping with what we have deserved, greatly distresses us. It often happens that the faithful, struck by this terror, feel themselves tormented in extraordinary ways. Nothing contributes more to tranquility in death than casting off sadness and awaiting the Lord’s coming with a joyful heart, ready and willing to return our deposit whenever he wishes to claim it from us. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction frees the minds of the faithful from this anxiety and fills the soul with holy and devout joy. We also gain from it another benefit, which may rightly seem the greatest of all. For although the enemy of the human race never ceases, while we live, to plot our destruction and ruin, he strains every nerve more fiercely at no other time to destroy us utterly and, if he can, to rob us of hope in divine mercy than when he sees the last day of life drawing near. Therefore this Sacrament supplies the faithful with arms and strength by which they can break the power and dominion of their adversary and resist him bravely. The sick person’s spirit is relieved and raised by hope in divine goodness; strengthened by this hope, he bears all the hardships of illness more lightly and more easily eludes the skill and cunning of the demon who lurks at his heel.”

Second conclusion. — THE RESTORATION OF BODILY HEALTH IS AN ACCIDENTAL EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT. This ought to be the common opinion among theologians.

That bodily health can be restored as an effect of this Sacrament is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 2, where, after listing the spiritual effects of this sacred Anointing, it adds: “And sometimes it attains bodily health, when this is expedient for the soul’s salvation.” This is also gathered from the words of St. James: “The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up.” This raising up concerns not only the uplifting of the soul, by which through the grace granted in this Sacrament the soul rises from torpor, sadness, and anxiety, and is raised up to God, while the sick person, strengthened by hope in his mercy, bears all the hardships of illness more lightly; it also tends to relieve the bodily illness that afflicts the sick person. Since the Apostle was speaking of bodily illness, it follows that the relief he promises through the sacred Anointing concerns not only the soul’s health but also the body’s. Hence, in its decree on extreme unction, the Council of Florence refers the term “healing” to both: “Its effect,” it says, “is the healing of the mind; insofar as it is expedient, also of the body.” Certainly, by a singular benefit of divine providence, the power to cure and heal the body was attached to this Sacrament above the others. For among all the evils of this world nothing is more terrible than death, just as nothing is more desired than life and health. This desire is strongest and most forceful precisely when a person sees, as his illness grows worse, that human and natural remedies are unavailable for prolonging life. Then the sick often undergo temptations to seek illicit and superstitious remedies to extend their lives, as is clear from the example of Ochozias in 2 Kings, ch. 1. Although the primary power of this Sacrament is spiritual, as is that of the other Sacraments, Christ our Lord, taking account of human frailty and weakness, also willed to attach to this sacred sign the power to cure bodily illness, lest the sick, despairing of a remedy for their disease, have recourse to illicit and superstitious aids. St. Augustine (or whoever is the author of the book On the Uprightness of the Catholic Life) indicated this reason when he says: “Whenever some illness comes upon anyone, let him seek no enchanters, diviners, or fortune-tellers; rather, let the sick person trust in God’s mercy alone, receive the Eucharist with faith and devotion, and faithfully ask the Church for blessed oil, and, according to the Apostle, ‘the prayer of faith will save the sick person.’”

This effect, however, is not intended per se, but only accidentally in this Sacrament, since, as the Councils of Trent and Florence say, this effect is produced only when it is expedient for the salvation of the recipient’s soul. Add that, although it happens less often for a person dangerously ill and anointed with this sacred Oil to be restored to his former health, it often happens that the sick person feels some relief from his illness, along with the interior consolation of the Holy Spirit, which this Anointing properly signifies and effects.

YOU WILL ASK 1. Who is the minister of this Sacrament?

I answer that this Sacrament cannot be validly administered by anyone other than a priest. So the Council of Trent defines in canon 4: “If anyone says that the presbyters of the Church, whom the Lord James exhorts to be called to anoint the sick, are not priests ordained by a bishop, but elderly men in any community, and that therefore a priest is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction, let him be anathema.” This is gathered from the words of St. James: “If anyone is ill, let him call for the presbyters,” where “presbyters” does not mean an elder or someone of greater age, as heretics wrongly interpret it, but truly means a priest, in keeping with 1 Timothy 4: “Do not neglect the grace that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy”—that is, through sacred ordination—“with the laying on of the hands of the presbyterate,” that is, the assembly of priests. This is confirmed, first, because not elders but bishops and priests have been appointed to pray for others, as is said in Hebrews 6. Second, otherwise it would be not the older but the holier whom one should call, since their prayers would be far more effective, as more acceptable and pleasing to God.

The Seraphic Doctor gives this reason for the truth in In IV Sent., d. 23, a. 2, q. 1: “It must be said,” he says, “that the administration of this Sacrament belongs by office to priests, and this is confirmed by authority and by reason. For it is said, ‘Let him call for the presbyters,’ etc., ‘and let them pray over him.’ The reason is that, since the matter of this Sacrament is oil consecrated by a bishop, it ought not be administered or touched except by one whose hands are consecrated, and such a person is a priest. Therefore it does not extend to everyone. Nor is it restricted to bishops alone, for since this is a Sacrament for those in danger, who cannot go to prelates but rather need the prelates to come to them, many would have to perish if it could be given only by bishops. Therefore the Holy Spirit ordained that the ointment should not be only on the head or beard of Aaron but should also descend to the edge of his garment, that is, to the lower-ranking priests. The reason is taken not only from the anointing but also from the prayer: since the office of mediation belongs to priests, as does offering gifts and sacrifices for sins, and belongs neither to bishops alone nor to laypeople, so too the administration of this Sacrament—whose efficacy consists chiefly in the prayer of faith, of which the priest is the minister by reason of his office—belongs to priests.”

YOU WILL SAY 1: In his letter to Decentius, Pope Innocent I, explaining the words of St. James, “Let him call for the presbyters of the Church,” writes: “There is no doubt that this is to be understood of the faithful who are sick, who may be anointed with the holy oil of chrism, made by a bishop, which not only priests but all Christians may use in their own need or that of their family.” Therefore it is lawful not only for priests but also for all Christians, at least in a case of necessity, to administer this Sacrament. — I deny the consequence. For the Pontiff is speaking of anointing not actively, on the minister’s part, but passively, on the recipient’s part: his meaning is that all the Christian faithful alike, not only priests, may be anointed with the oil of the sick; he does not mean that everyone alike is permitted to confer this Sacrament. That this is his meaning is clear from the words that follow, where he adds that not only a priest but a bishop is the minister of this Sacrament: “Moreover,” he says, “we see that the addition about the bishop is superfluous, since there is no doubt that this is permitted to priests. The presbyters are mentioned because bishops, occupied with other duties, cannot go to all the sick. Moreover, if a bishop can, or deems it worthy, bless and touch with chrism someone whom he visits, he can do so as the one who makes the chrism itself.”

YOU WILL SAY 2: The administration of this Sacrament was granted not to bishops alone but also to presbyters because bishops could not be present to each sick person. But priests cannot do this either, especially in places where they are scarce. Therefore, in a case of necessity, not only priests but any of the faithful may administer this Sacrament.

I deny the consequence. Since this Sacrament is not absolutely necessary for salvation, and the sick person’s devotion can make up for its absence and for the absence of a priest, it was not necessary to grant its administration to all the faithful. — Although St. James advises that “the presbyters are to be called,” this advice is not to be understood as if several presbyters were necessary for the valid conferral of this Sacrament, as the Greeks think, summoning seven presbyters to administer Extreme Unction to the sick. Simon of Thessalonica, in Arcudius, ch. 3, gives this reason for the practice: “The brother of God James,” he says, *“does not specify the number of these presbyters; nevertheless, tradition has handed down that seven are to be summoned. I think this is done because of the seven gifts of the Spirit listed in Isaiah, or because of the seven priests of the Old Law who, at God’s command, marched around the city of Jericho and blew their trumpets seven times, bringing down its walls. So too here, seven priests may demolish the city of evil and the hard walls of the heights of sin. Or, since the soul is as if dead, the priests may pray seven times and raise it, following the example of the prophet with the child of the Shunammite woman. Elisha raised the child by returning seven times and praying seven times. Just as Elijah, praying seven times, reopened the heaven that he had closed against sinners and brought down rain, so these priests, praying seven times, may remove the stain of sin and, having received the key of grace, open heaven like Peter and bring down God’s mercy and forgiveness like rain. This, in my opinion, is the meaning of the number seven. In a necessity, fewer priests may administer the Sacrament.” And further: “Some, where priests are scarce, summon only three, and this is not to be condemned. First, this is on account of the power of the Trinity; then also on account of another deed of Elijah, as a testimony to and proclamation of the Trinity: when he raised the dead son of the woman of Zarephath by praying three times and stretching himself over him three times. Moreover, one should not inquire too curiously about the number when no number is written. Even though it is not written, one must nevertheless observe the ancient tradition: if possible, seven, as in the old custom; but if there is need, at least three. They should recite everything that tradition has handed down for them to say, for we must acknowledge that the things handed down by the Fathers are also of the Spirit.” But, as Arcudius replies there, from what does Simon infer that because the Apostle said “Let him call for the presbyters of the Church,” he meant more than one presbyter? If the reason is the plural number, Scripture often uses the plural for the singular. For the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews about the prophets, says: “They stopped the mouths of lions, they were stoned, they were sawn in two, they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins”; yet Daniel alone stopped the mouths of lions, Jeremiah alone was stoned, and Isaiah alone was sawn in two. Likewise, St. Matthew and St. Mark report that the robbers crucified with Christ reproached him for his weakness, although St. Luke explicitly writes: “One of the robbers who were hanging there blasphemed him.” They must therefore be answered in the same way: they used the plural for the singular, as St. Augustine observed in book 3 of On the Harmony of the Gospels, ch. 16. — Next, Scripture often uses ordinary ways of speaking. In ordinary speech we say, “Sins must be confessed to priests,” and “When ill, one must call doctors,” although we always confess our sins to one priest and very often one doctor treats the sick person. Therefore, when the Apostle James said, “Let him call for the presbyters,” it is as if he had said, “Let him call for one of the presbyters.” Christ our Lord likewise said to the lepers, “Go, show yourselves to the priests,” although he said to another leper, “Go, show yourself to the priest.” And Leviticus 13 says of the leper: “He is brought to Aaron the priest, or to any one of his sons.” Certainly, if all ten lepers had shown themselves to one priest, they would have fully satisfied the command of Christ our Lord. — And further: One presbyter considered individually truly, properly, and in himself, even according to the Greeks, provides the subject with the true matter and complete form of this Sacrament. Therefore, he truly and properly confers this Sacrament alone. The others thus seem superfluous—superfluous, I say, if they perform the Sacrament by reciting the same form. Indeed, I shall say in its proper place whether they also sin gravely by repeating the Sacrament without reason. — Finally, if the Thessalonian seeks fitting explanations, as he requires at least three to signify the most holy Trinity, we likewise require one to declare the one Divinity, or the one person of Christ incarnate, or something similar; ingenious parallels and fitting explanations of things are not lacking. Therefore, if one presbyter is present, he alone is sufficient, especially in a necessity. So says Arcudius. It follows, then, that when St. James says, “Let him call for the presbyters,” he commends the quality of the minister rather than the number. He said this by an enallage, just as it is often said that a sinner must confess his crimes to priests, that is, to a man who is a priest, or to one of the priests.

From these points, CONCLUDE that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction ought to be administered entirely by the same minister, so that each Anointing, with its forms and prayers, be performed by the same priest. For St. James says that those who anoint must pray over the sick person; but one prayer, spoken in part by several people, cannot have a complete sense according to common usage. Nevertheless, the Anointings of different senses, together with their corresponding forms, could be administered by different priests: validly, though illicitly, outside a case of necessity, because this would be contrary to the Church’s practice, which must be especially observed in the administration of the Sacraments; but licitly in a necessity, for example if the first priest becomes incapacitated after the first Anointing of one sense, and another then completes the remaining Anointings.

CONCLUDE 2. The ordinary minister of Extreme Unction is the proper pastor of each church. Although every priest can validly confer this Sacrament even outside a necessity, he cannot licitly do so unless he is the recipient’s own priest or has obtained permission from him. First, administering a Sacrament is the pastor’s office, which no one may claim for himself unless he has received authorization from that pastor or his superior. Hence, after the Catechism of the Council of Trent says in n. 26 that the administration of this Sacrament is entrusted to a priest alone, it adds: “Nevertheless, by decree of the Church it is not lawful for just any priest to administer this Sacrament, but only for the proper pastor, who has jurisdiction, or for another to whom he has granted the authority to perform this office.” Second, under the penalty of excommunication, the first Clementine constitution On Privileges forbids religious to administer this Sacrament to clergy or laity who are not subject to them without the permission of their own priest or parish priest.

YOU WILL ASK 2. To whom should this Sacrament be administered?

I ANSWER, only a Christian who is a wayfarer, an adult, and sick is capable of receiving this Sacrament.

The first part is clear, for no person is capable of receiving a Sacrament unless he is marked with the baptismal character, since, as we have said several times with the Council of Trent, Baptism is the gateway to all the Sacraments. Hence, if this Sacrament were conferred on an unbaptized person, even if he were a catechumen in a state of grace, it would be altogether invalid and null.

The second part is also clear: only a living person who is a wayfarer is capable of receiving this Sacrament. First, St. James says that the person on whom this sacred Anointing is to be conferred must be sick, and consequently alive and a wayfarer. Second, as we said when treating of the Sacraments in general, the Sacraments of the New Law are remedies that do not benefit the finally dead and condemned, nor those enjoying perpetual health, such as the blessed, but only the sick, as wayfarers are.

The third part, namely that this Sacrament should be conferred only on adults, is sufficiently gathered from what has been said. Since this Sacrament’s chief effect is the remission of venial sin and, accidentally, of mortal sin as well, it should be administered only to one capable of committing such sins. But children before the use of reason are incapable of committing any sin; therefore they are not capable of receiving this Sacrament either. This is no objection: they are capable of grace and its increase, but an increase or infusion of grace is a general effect of the Sacraments, which is conferred through each Sacrament only as joined to that Sacrament’s proper effects. Therefore, where there is no capacity for the primary and proper effect, there is no capacity for the Sacrament either, and the common effect of the Sacraments is not to be conferred through that Sacrament. — Or I say, with the Master, that the Sacraments were indeed instituted to cause grace, since this is their common effect; yet they were not instituted to cause it in just any way, but as something necessary for some particular effect proper to them. Otherwise it would follow that, since the habitual grace caused by all of them is of the same species, it would produce the same effects in each Sacrament, and all the Sacraments would also be of the same species. Hence we said above that Baptism was instituted to cause grace by which original sin and the other actual sins are erased, and Penance to cause grace by which a person can firmly confess the faith, and so on with the others. Thus, in the present case, Extreme Unction was instituted to cause grace that in itself remits venial sins in a person capable of them, to strengthen against temptations, and to relieve the soul, as is clear from what was said. Since children are capable neither of sins nor of the devil’s temptations, they are also not capable of the grace conferred through this Sacrament, which in itself remits venial sins in a subject capable of them. So Mastrius, q. 6, n. 106. — Nor is it an objection that infants are capable of receiving health, which is counted among the effects of Extreme Unction. For, as we said, this effect is intended only accidentally, not first and per se; therefore the Sacrament should not be administered for the sake of producing this effect alone. Accordingly, this Sacrament can licitly be conferred only on adults who have at some time had the use of reason, provided it is not certain that before losing the use of reason they were in sin and did not repent of it—for example, if someone were deprived of reason and his senses while blaspheming or committing adultery, and were suffering from a dangerous illness. In this situation the Sacrament should not be conferred on him, because it is not ordered directly to the remission of mortal sin and, moreover, presupposes a penitent person or someone in a state of grace. — But this Sacrament must be administered to all other adults, even if they presently have no use of reason, provided they had it before. For this Sacrament’s primary effect is not only the strengthening of the soul against the devil’s temptations, but also the remission of venial sins and of mortal sins innocently forgotten or not remitted by other Sacraments. Although the insane in this state cannot receive those effects, they can receive another, namely the remission of sins. For it can happen that someone in mortal sin, with only attrition, falls into insanity; in that case, through the power of this Sacrament he receives grace and, from being attrite, becomes equivalent to one who is contrite. This is no objection: St. James says, “Let him call for the presbyters.” These words do not mean that the sick person must make a formal and explicit request for this Sacrament; a virtual and interpretative request suffices, which each person has for his own salvation. Indeed, if this interpretative and virtual request suffices for receiving Baptism, it will suffice all the more for conferring the sacred Anointing.

Finally, the last part is clear: only a sick person is capable of Extreme Unction. For it is believed to have been instituted by Christ our Lord on the basis of St. James’s words: “Is anyone among you ill?” and so forth. The Council of Florence declares this when it says: “This Sacrament is not to be given except to a sick person whose death is feared,” and the Council of Trent says: “Only to the sick who seem to be at the end of life.” Hence this Sacrament cannot validly be conferred on a healthy person, even if he is in evident danger of death, such as those condemned to death, those about to sail into danger, or soldiers about to go to battle. For these people are not sick, and they can provide for themselves through other Sacraments, especially the Sacrament of Penance.

The Doctor explains all these points clearly and neatly in d. 23, n. 3, where he gives and explains the definition of Extreme Unction in this way: “Extreme Unction is the anointing of a sick, penitent person, performed on designated parts of the body with oil consecrated by a bishop, administered by a priest who at the same time speaks the appointed words with the proper intention; by divine institution it effectively signifies the final healing of venial sins. This definition,” he says, “seems good because it is not false in itself, according to Metaphysics V, ch. 17, since none of its parts conflicts with another. In explaining its parts, first it says that it is an anointing. This is fitting because this sensible sign corresponds to its effect, namely a healing anointing. It adds, of a sick person. Therefore it must not be conferred on a healthy person or on someone exposed to danger of death in just any way: not on someone whose death threatens because of external violence, such as weapons, drowning, or the like, nor when he is at the end of the state of a wayfarer, so that danger, rather than the illness, is what is probably imminent for the sick person. The added word penitent is clear, because no one is capable of this Sacrament worthily unless he is in grace. For this Sacrament is not a remedy for acquiring grace; only Baptism and Penance serve that purpose. This excludes those who do not use reason, such as little children, and those who lack the matter for penance, at least those who have no penance for venial sins, such as the perfectly innocent. Since those who do not use reason cannot be penitent either, the furious and insane are excluded, unless they are presumed to will it on the basis of a prior express will. The addition on designated parts refers to the organs of the faculties through whose acts one often sins venially, such as the organs of the five senses and the faculty of movement. Sometimes this is with respect to the same doubled sense or faculty, such as the organs of sight, the two eyes; the organs of hearing, the two ears; the organs of smell, the nostrils; the organs of touch, the hands. Accordingly, just as the organs named above are doubled, so too are the Anointings. The organ of taste is the tongue, on which no anointing is made, so as to avoid revulsion; rather, it is made externally over the mouth. The anointing on the loins is for the organ of the generative faculty, in accordance with Gregory’s words on the passage in Luke, ‘Let your loins be girded.’ He says, ‘For men, lust is in the loins.’ The principal organ of the moving faculty, insofar as it is locomotion, is the reason for the two Anointings on the two feet, as organs ordered to that movement. Another movement by which one often sins is the movement of the tongue, in accordance with James 3: ‘The one who does not offend in speech is a perfect man,’ and much else there. The anointing of the mouth is directed against this, so that it is a remedy for two kinds of venial sin, just as the tongue serves two natural functions, according to On the Soul II, namely taste and speech. There are therefore eleven Anointings, that is, individual ones; but some are doubled as if they were one, so that there are seven principal Anointings: five on the organs of the five senses, the sixth on the principal organ of the faculty of locomotion, and the seventh on the principal organ of the generative faculty.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent agrees with the Doctor in n. 17, where it says: The faithful must be taught that, although this Sacrament concerns everyone, certain classes of people are nevertheless excepted, and it must not be administered to them. First, those who are sound and strong in body are excepted. The Apostle teaches that Extreme Unction is not to be given to them when he says, “Is anyone among you ill?” Reason also shows this, since the Sacrament was instituted to bring medicine not only to the soul but also to the body. Since only those suffering from illness need healing, this Sacrament should be given to those who seem to be so dangerously ill that there is reason to fear their final day of life is near. Yet those who customarily wait to anoint the sick person until “all hope of recovery has been lost and he begins to lose life and his senses” are gravely at fault. For it is clear that, to receive the Sacrament’s more abundant grace, it helps greatly if the sick person is anointed with the sacred oil while his mind and reason are still sound and he can bring faith and a devout disposition of soul. Parish priests should therefore take care to apply this heavenly medicine at the time when, though it is always very salutary by its own power, they understand that it will be more beneficial through the piety and devotion of those who are to be healed. Accordingly, it is not lawful to give the Sacrament of Anointing to anyone who is not afflicted by a grave illness, even if he faces danger of death because he is about to undertake a dangerous voyage or enter a battle in which certain death threatens him, or even if he is condemned to death and being led to execution. Moreover, all those who lack the use of reason are unfit to receive this Sacrament, as are children, who commit no sins whose remnants need to be healed by this Sacramental remedy. The insane and the mentally ill are likewise excluded, unless they had the use of reason at some time and, especially at that time, showed a devout disposition and requested to be anointed with the sacred oil. For a person who from birth has never been in possession of mind and reason is not to be anointed. The case is different if the sick person, while still of sound mind, had wished to receive this Sacrament and later fell into insanity and madness.”

YOU WILL ASK: What obligation is there to receive this Sacrament? — I answer first that, considered in itself and absolutely, in relation to a person suffering from a dangerous illness, Extreme Unction does not oblige adult members of the faithful to receive it, since they would be bound to do so either by necessity of means or by necessity of precept. Not by the first, because this Sacrament is not so necessary that salvation cannot be attained without receiving it. No necessity of this kind can be inferred on any ground, since there is no precept in Scripture, Tradition, the canons, or the Church’s practice. It is not in Scripture: if there were a precept to receive this Sacrament, it would most likely be inferred from the words of St. James. But this is not so, since St. James there only promulgates this Sacrament and exhorts the faithful to receive it more than he commands them to do so. Therefore there is no obligation to receive it under pain of sin. Nor does such an obligation arise from the canons or the Church’s practice, because the Church’s practice is founded not on an obligation but on the benefit obtained from receiving this Sacrament. Nor does it arise from the canons, for no canon appears from which this necessity can be inferred. Hence, at a time of interdict, the Church forbids the Sacrament of Extreme Unction to be given to the dying, in ch. Quod in te, On Penance and Remission. It certainly would not forbid it if it were necessary for them by necessity of means or precept; for that reason it does not forbid them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist as viaticum. — I answer second that, if this Sacrament is considered in relation to certain special circumstances, such as scandal, contempt, or conscience, adult members of the faithful are sometimes obliged to receive it. For each person is bound to avoid scandal and to procure for himself the means that his conscience judges necessary for attaining salvation. Now omitting to receive this Sacrament can sometimes cause scandal, for example, suspicion of heresy or contempt for this Sacrament, if someone who is well regarded by everyone knows that he is suffering from a dangerous illness and that it is common practice among the faithful to receive this Sacrament in such a state, yet rejects it in front of many people and thus gives them reason to suspect that he is a heretic. Or the obligation can arise from conscience: if the sick person doubts his Contrition and cannot receive the Sacrament of Penance, through which he would become contrite from being attrite, then he is bound to procure the reception of this Sacrament so that he may have sufficient means for salvation.

YOU WILL ASK, FINALLY: What dispositions are required beforehand in the recipient for the worthy reception of this Sacrament? — I answer that the recipient must, first, be cleansed from every mortal sin. Hence this Sacrament is customarily conferred only after sacramental Absolution. Second, the recipient must have faith and hope for the attainment of health of soul and body, if bodily health is expedient for salvation. Third, he must join and unite his intention and prayers to the intention and prayers of the Church. Fourth and finally, he must hope that divine help and protection against all the assaults of demons will thereby be granted to him. The Roman Catechism, n. 29, explains all these dispositions very well when it writes: “Since every effort must be made to ensure that nothing impedes the grace of the Sacrament—and nothing opposes it more than consciousness of some mortal sin—the perpetual custom of the Catholic Church must be observed: before Extreme Unction, the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist are to be administered. Then parish priests should strive to persuade the sick person to present himself to the priest for anointing with the same faith with which those who were to be healed by the Apostles once used to offer themselves. Above all, the salvation of the soul, and then bodily health, should be sought, with the qualification that the latter be beneficial for eternal glory. The faithful should not doubt that God hears those holy and solemn prayers which the priest uses while acting not in his own person but in the person of the Church and our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the chief reason they should be urged to see that the Sacrament of this most healthful Oil is administered to them in a holy and devout manner, since a fiercer battle seems to be imminent and the strength of both soul and body seems to be failing.”