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

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.