No More Learning

Objection 2: Further, the greater the need, the more room there is for
pity. Now a man who is in mortal sin is in very great need. Therefore
all the more should pity be extended to him by indulgence.

On the contrary, A dead member receives no inflow from the other
members that are living. But one who is in mortal sin, is like a dead
member. Therefore he receives no inflow, through indulgences, from the
merits of living members.

I answer that, Some hold that indulgences avail those even who are in
mortal sin, for the acquiring of grace, but not for the remission of
their punishment, since none can be freed from punishment who is not
yet freed from guilt. For he who has not yet been reached by God's
operation unto the remission of guilt, cannot receive the remission of
his punishment from the minister of the Church neither by indulgences
nor in the tribunal of Penance.

But this opinion seems to be untrue. Because, although those merits
which are applied by means of an indulgence, might possibly avail a
person so that he could merit grace (by way of congruity and
impetration), yet it is not for this reason that they are applied, but
for the remission of punishment. Hence they do not avail those who are
in mortal sin, and consequently, true contrition and confession are
demanded as conditions for gaining all indulgences. If however the
merits were applied by such a form as this: "I grant you a share in the
merits of the whole Church---or of one congregation, or of one
specified person," then they might avail a person in mortal sin so that
he could merit something, as the foregoing opinion holds.

This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

Reply to Objection 2: Although he who is in mortal sin is in greater
need of help, yet he is less capable of receiving it.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether indulgences avail religious?

Objection 1: It would seem that indulgences do not avail religious. For
there is no reason to bring supplies to those who supply others out of
their own abundance. Now indulgences are derived from the abundance of
works of satisfaction to be found in religious. Therefore it is
unreasonable for them to profit by indulgences.

Objection 2: Further, nothing detrimental to religious life should be
done in the Church. But, if indulgences were to avail religious, this
would be detrimental to regular discipline, because religious would
become lax on account of indulgences, and would neglect the penances
imposed in chapter. Therefore indulgences do not avail religious.

On the contrary, Good brings harm to no man. But the religious life is
a good thing. Therefore it does not take away from religious the profit
to be derived from indulgences.

I answer that, Indulgences avail both seculars and religious, provided
they have charity and satisfy the conditions for gaining the
indulgences: for religious can be helped by indulgences no less than
persons living in the world.

Reply to Objection 1: Although religious are in the state of
perfection, yet they cannot live without sin: and so if at times they
are liable to punishment on account of some sin, they can expiate this
debt by means of indulgences. For it is not unreasonable that one who
is well off absolutely speaking, should be in want at times and in some
respect, and thus need to be supplied with what he lacks. Hence it is
written (Gal. 6:2): "Bear ye one another's burdens. "

Reply to Objection 2: There is no reason why indulgences should be
detrimental to religious observance, because, as to the reward of
eternal life, religious merit more by observing their rule than by
gaining indulgences; although, as to the remission of punishment, which
is a lesser good, they merit less. Nor again do indulgences remit the
punishment enjoined in chapter, because the chapter is a judicial
rather than a penitential tribunal. hence even those who are not
priests hold chapter. Absolution from punishment enjoined or due for
sin is given in the tribunal of Penance.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether an indulgence can ever be granted to one who does not fulfill the
conditions required?

Objection 1: It would seem that an indulgence can sometimes be granted
to one who does not fulfill the required conditions. Because when a
person is unable to perform a certain action his will is taken for the
deed. Now sometimes an indulgence is to be gained by giving an alms,
which a poor man is unable to do, though he would do so willingly.
Therefore he can gain the indulgence.

Objection 2: Further, one man can make satisfaction for another. Now an
indulgence is directed to the remission of punishment, just as
satisfaction is. Therefore one man can gain an indulgence for another;
and so a man can gain an indulgence without doing that for which the
indulgence is given.

On the contrary, If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. If
therefore a person fails to do that for which an indulgence is granted,
and which is the cause of the indulgence, he does not gain the
indulgence.

I answer that, Failing the condition of a grant, no grant ensues.
Hence, as an indulgence is granted on the condition that a person does
or gives a certain thing, if he fails in this, he does not gain the
indulgence.

Reply to Objection 1: This is true of the essential reward, but not of
certain accidental rewards, such as the remission of punishment and the
like.

Reply to Objection 2: A person can by his intention apply his own
action to whomever he lists, and so he can make satisfaction for
whomever he chooses. On the other hand, an indulgence cannot be applied
to someone, except in accordance with the intention of the grantor.
Hence, since he applies it to the doer or giver of a particular action
or thing, the doer cannot transfer this intention to another. If,
however, the indulgence were expressed thus: "Whosoever does this, or
for whomsoever this is done, shall gain so much indulgence," it would
avail the person for whom it is done. Nor would the person who does
this action, give the indulgence to another, but he who grants the
indulgence in this form.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether an indulgence avails the person who grants it?

Objection 1: It would seem that an indulgence does not avail him who
grants it. For the granting of an indulgence belongs to jurisdiction.
Now no one can exercise jurisdiction on himself. thus no one can
excommunicate himself. Therefore no one can participate in an
indulgence granted by himself.

Objection 2: Further, if this were possible, he who grants an
indulgence might gain the remission of the punishment of all his sins
for some small deed, so that he would sin with impunity, which seems
senseless.

Objection 3: Further, to grant indulgences and to excommunicate belong
to the same power. Now a man cannot excommunicate himself. Therefore he
cannot share in the indulgence of which he is the grantor.

On the contrary, He would be worse off than others if he could not make
use of the Church's treasury which he dispenses to others.

I answer that, An indulgence should be given for some reason, in order
for anyone to be enticed by the indulgence to perform some action that
conduces to the good of the Church and to the honor of God. Now the
prelate to whom is committed the care of the Church's good and of the
furthering of God's honor, does not need to entice himself thereto.
Therefore he cannot grant an indulgence to himself alone; but he can
avail himself of an indulgence that he grants for others, since it is
based on a cause for granting it to them.

Reply to Objection 1: A man cannot exercise an act of jurisdiction on
himself, but a prelate can avail himself of those things which are
granted to others by the authority of his jurisdiction, both in
temporal and in spiritual matters: thus also a priest gives himself the
Eucharist which he gives to others. And so a bishop too can apply to
himself the suffrages of the Church which he dispenses to others, the
immediate effect of which suffrages, and not of his jurisdiction, is
the remission of punishment by means of indulgences.

The Reply to the Second Objection is clear from what had been said.

Reply to Objection 3: Excommunication is pronounced by way of sentence,
which no man can pronounce on himself, for the reason that in the
tribunal of justice the same man cannot be both judge and accused. On
the other hand an indulgence is not given under the form of a sentence,
but by way of dispensation, which a man can apply to himself.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE SOLEMN RITE OF PENANCE (THREE ARTICLES)

We must now consider the solemn rite of Penance: under which head there
are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether a penance can be published or solemnized?

(2) Whether a solemn penance can be repeated?

(3) Whether public penance should be imposed on women?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether a penance should be published or solemnized?

Objection 1: It would seem that a penance should not be published or
solemnized. Because it is not lawful for a priest, even through fear,
to divulge anyone's sin, however notorious it may be. Now a sin is
published by a solemn penance. Therefore a penance should not be
solemnized.

Objection 2: Further, the judgment should follow the nature of the
tribunal. Now penance is a judgment pronounced in a secret tribunal.
Therefore it should not be published or solemnized.

Objection 3: Further, "Every deficiency is made good by penance" as
Ambrose [*Cf. Hypognost. iii, among the spurious works ascribed to St.
Augustine] states. Now solemnization has a contrary effect, since it
involves the penitent in many deficiencies: for a layman cannot be
promoted to the ranks of the clergy nor can a cleric be promoted to
higher orders, after doing solemn penance. Therefore Penance should not
be solemnized.

On the contrary, Penance is a sacrament. Now some kind of solemnity is
observed in every sacrament. Therefore there should be some solemnity
in Penance.

Further, the medicine should suit the disease. Now a sin is sometimes
public, and by its example draws many to sin. Therefore the penance
which is its medicine should also be public and solemn so as to give
edification to many.

I answer that, Some penances should be public and solemn for four
reasons. First, so that a public sin may have a public remedy;
secondly, because he who has committed a very grave crime deserves the
greatest confusion even in this life; thirdly, in order that it may
deter others; fourthly, that he may be an example of repentance, lest
those should despair, who have committed grievous sins.

Reply to Objection 1: The priest does not divulge the confession by
imposing such a penance, though people may suspect the penitent of
having committed some great sin. For a man is not certainly taken to be
guilty, because he is punished, since sometimes one does penance for
another: thus we read in the Lives of the Fathers of a certain man who,
in order to incite his companion to do penance, did penance together
with him. And if the sin be public, the penitent, by fulfilling his
penance, shows that he has been to confession.

Reply to Objection 2: A solemn penance, as to its imposition, does not
go beyond the limits of a secret tribunal, since, just as the
confession is made secretly, so the penance is imposed secretly. It is
the execution of the penance, that goes beyond the limits of the secret
tribunal: and there is nothing objectionable in this.

Reply to Objection 3: Although Penance cancels all deficiencies, by
restoring man to his former state of grace, yet it does not always
restore him to his former dignity. Hence women after doing penance for
fornication are not given the veil, because they do not recover the
honor of virginity. In like manner, after doing public penance, a
sinner does not recover his former dignity so as to be eligible for the
clerical state and a bishop who would ordain such a one ought to be
deprived of the power of ordaining, unless perhaps the needs of the
Church or custom require it. In that case such a one would be admitted
to minor orders by way of exception, but not to the sacred orders.
First, on account of the dignity of the latter; secondly, for fear of
relapse; thirdly, in order to avoid the scandal which the people might
take through recollection of his former sins; fourthly, because he
would not have the face to correct others, by reason of the publicity
of his own sin.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether a solemn penance can be repeated?

Objection 1: It would seem that a solemn penance can be repeated. For
those sacraments which do not imprint a character, can be solemnized a
second time, such as the Eucharist, Extreme Unction and the like. But
Penance does not imprint a character, therefore it can be solemnized
over again.

Objection 2: Further, penance is solemnized on account of the gravity
and publicity of the sin. Now, after doing penance, a person may commit
the same sins over again, or even more grievous sins. Therefore the
solemn penance should be imposed again.

On the contrary, Solemn penance signifies the expulsion of the first
man from paradise. Now this was done but once. Therefore solemn penance
should be imposed once only.

I answer that, Solemn penance ought not to be repeated, for three
reasons. First, lest frequency bring it into contempt. Secondly, on
account of its signification; for it signifies the expulsion of the
first man from paradise, which happened only once; thirdly, because the
solemnization indicates, in a way, that one makes profession of
continual repentance. Wherefore repetition is inconsistent with
solemnization. And if the sinner fall again, he is not precluded from
doing penance, but a solemn penance should not be imposed on him again.

Reply to Objection 1: In those sacraments which are solemnized again
and again, repetition is not inconsistent with solemnity, as it is in
the present case. Hence the comparison fails.

Reply to Objection 2: Although, if we consider his crime, he ought to
do the same penance again, yet the repeated solemnization is not
becoming, for the reasons stated above.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether solemn penance should be imposed on women and clerics, and whether
any priest can impose it?

Objection 1: It would seem that solemn penance should not be imposed on
women. Because, when this penance is imposed on a man, he has to cut
his hair off. But this becomes not a woman, according to 1 Cor. 11:15.
Therefore she should not do solemn penance.

Objection 2: It also seems that it ought to be imposed on clerics. For
it is enjoined on account of a grievous crime. Now the same sin is more
grievous in a cleric than in a layman. Therefore it ought to be imposed
on a cleric more than on a layman.

Objection 3: It also seems that it can be imposed by any priest.
Because to absolve in the tribunal of Penance belongs to one who has
the keys. Now an ordinary priest has the keys. Therefore he can
administer this penance.

I answer that, Every solemn penance is public, but not vice versa. For
solemn penance is done as follows: "On the first day of Lent, these
penitents clothed in sackcloth, with bare feet, their faces to the
ground, and their hair shorn away, accompanied by their priests,
present themselves to the bishop of the city at the door of the church.
Having brought them into the church the bishop with all his clergy
recites the seven penitential psalms, and then imposes his hand on
them, sprinkles them with holy water, puts ashes on their heads, covers
their shoulders with a hairshirt, and sorrowfully announces to them
that as Adam was expelled from paradise, so are they expelled from the
church. He then orders the ministers to put them out of the church, and
the clergy follow reciting the responsory: 'In the sweat of thy brow,'
etc. Every year on the day of our Lord's Supper they are brought back
into the church by their priests, and there shall they be until the
octave day of Easter, without however being admitted to Communion or to
the kiss of peace. This shall be done every year as long as entrance
into the church is forbidden them. The final reconciliation is reserved
to the bishop, who alone can impose solemn penance" [*Cap. lxiv, dist.
50].

This penance can be imposed on men and women; but not on clerics, for
fear of scandal. Nor ought such a penance to be imposed except for a
crime which has disturbed the whole of the city.

On the other hand public but not solemn penance is that which is done
in the presence of the Church, but without the foregoing solemnity,
such as a pilgrimage throughout the world with a staff. A penance of
this kind can be repeated, and can be imposed by a mere priest, even on
a cleric. Sometimes however a solemn penance is taken to signify a
public one: so that authorities speak of solemn penance in different
senses.

Reply to Objection 1: The woman's hair is a sign of her subjection, a
man's is not. Hence it is not proper for a woman to put aside her hair
when doing penance, as it is for a man.

Reply to Objection 2: Although in the same kind of sin, a cleric
offends more grievously than a layman, yet a solemn penance is not
imposed on him, lest his orders should be an object of contempt. Thus
deference is given not to the person but to his orders.

Reply to Objection 3: Grave sins need great care in their cure. Hence
the imposition of a solemn penance, which is only applied for the most
grievous sins, is reserved to the bishop.
__________________________________________________________________

EXTREME UNCTION (QQ[29]-33)

OF EXTREME UNCTION, AS REGARDS ITS ESSENCE AND INSTITUTION (NINE
ARTICLES)

We must now consider the sacrament of Extreme Unction: in respect of
which five points have to be considered: (1) Its essentials and
institution; (2) Its effect; (3) Its minister; (4) on whom should it be
conferred and in what parts; (5) Its repetition.

Under the first head there are nine points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Extreme Unction is a sacrament?

(2) Whether it is one sacrament?

(3) Whether this sacrament was instituted by Christ?

(4) Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament?

(5) Whether the oil ought to be consecrated?

(6) Whether the matter of this sacrament should be consecrated by a
bishop?

(7) Whether this sacrament has any form?

(8) Whether the form of this sacrament should take the shape of a
deprecatory phrase?

(9) Whether this is a suitable form for this sacrament?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Extreme Unction is a sacrament?

Objection 1: It would seem that Extreme Unction is not a sacrament. For
just as oil is used on sick people, so is it on catechumens. But
anointing of catechumens with oil is not a sacrament. Therefore neither
is the Extreme Unction of the sick with oil.

Objection 2: Further, the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of the
sacraments of the New Law. But there was no figure of Extreme Unction
in the Old Law. Therefore it is not a sacrament of the New Law.

Objection 3: Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii, v) every
sacrament aims at either cleansing, or enlightening, or perfecting. Now
Extreme Unction does not aim at either cleansing, or enlightening, for
this is ascribed to Baptism alone, or perfecting, for according to
Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), this belongs to Confirmation and the
Eucharist. Therefore Extreme Unction is not a sacrament.

On the contrary, The sacraments of the Church supply man's defects
sufficiently with respect to every state of life. Now no other than
Extreme Unction does this for those who are departing from this life.
Therefore it is a sacrament.

Further, the sacraments are neither more nor less than spiritual
remedies. Now Extreme Unction is a spiritual remedy, since it avails
for the remission of sins, according to James 5:15. Therefore it is a
sacrament.

I answer that, Among the visible operations of the Church, some are
sacraments, as Baptism, some are sacramentals, as Exorcism. The
difference between these is that a sacrament is an action of the Church
that reaches to the principal effect intended in the administration of
the sacraments, whereas a sacramental is an action which, though it
does not reach to that effect, is nevertheless directed towards that
principal action. Now the effect intended in the administration of the
sacraments is the healing of the disease of sin: wherefore it is
written (Is. 27:9): "This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should
be taken away. " Since then Extreme Unction reaches to this effect, as
is clear from the words of James, and is not ordained to any other
sacrament as an accessory thereto, it is evident that Extreme Unction
is not a sacramental but a sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1: The oil with which catechumens are anointed does
not convey the remission of sins to them by its unction, for that
belongs to Baptism. It does, however, dispose them to receive Baptism,
as stated above ([4891]TP, Q[71], A[3]). Hence that unction is not a
sacrament as Extreme Unction is.
Reply to Objection 2: This sacrament prepares man for glory
immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this
life. And as, under the Old Law, it was not yet time to enter into
glory, because "the Law brought nobody [Vulg. : 'nothing'] to
perfection" (Heb. 7:19), so this sacrament had not to be foreshadowed
therein by some corresponding sacrament, as by a figure of the same
kind. Nevertheless it was somewhat foreshadowed remotely by all the
healings related in the Old Testament.

Reply to Objection 3: Dionysius makes no mention of Extreme Unction, as
neither of Penance, nor of Matrimony, because he had no intention to
decide any question about the sacraments, save in so far as they serve
to illustrate the orderly disposition of the ecclesiastical hierarchy,
as regards the ministers, their actions, and the recipients.
Nevertheless since Extreme Unction confers grace and remission of sins,
there is no doubt that it possesses an enlightening and cleansing
power, even as Baptism, though not so copious.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Extreme Unction is one sacrament?

Objection 1: It would seem that Extreme Unction is not one sacrament.
Because the oneness of a thing depends on its matter and form, since
being and oneness are derived from the same source. Now the form of
this sacrament is said several times during the one administration, and
the matter is applied to the person anointed in respect of various
parts of his body. Therefore it is not one sacrament.

Objection 2: Further, the unction itself is a sacrament, for it would
be absurd to say that the oil is a sacrament. But there are several
unctions. Therefore there are several sacraments.

Objection 3: Further, one sacrament should be performed by one
minister. But the case might occur that Extreme Unction could not be
conferred by one minister: thus if the priest die after the first
unction, another priest would have to proceed with the others.
Therefore Extreme Unction is not one sacrament.

On the contrary, As immersion is in relation to Baptism, so is unction
to this sacrament. But several immersions are but one sacrament of
Baptism. Therefore the several unctions in Extreme Unction are also one
sacrament.

Further, if it were not one sacrament, then after the first unction, it
would not be essential for the perfection of the sacrament that the
second unction should be performed, since each sacrament has perfect
being of itself. But that is not true. Therefore it is one sacrament.

I answer that, Strictly speaking, a thing is one numerically in three
ways. First, as something indivisible, which is neither actually nor
potentially several---as a point, and unity. Secondly, as something
continuous, which is actually one, but potentially several---as a line.
Thirdly, as something complete, that is composed of several parts---as
a house, which is, in a way, several things, even actually, although
those several things go together towards making one. In this way each
sacrament is said to be one thing, in as much as the many things which
are contained in one sacrament, are united together for the purpose of
signifying or causing one thing, because a sacrament is a sign of the
effect it produces. Hence when one action suffices for a perfect
signification, the unity of the sacrament consists in that action only,
as may be seen in Confirmation. When, however, the signification of the
sacrament can be both in one and in several actions, then the sacrament
can be complete both in one and in several actions, even as Baptism in
one immersion and in three, since washing which is signified in
Baptism, can be completed by one immersion and by several. But when the
perfect signification cannot be expressed except by means of several
actions, then these several actions are essential for the perfection of
the sacrament, as is exemplified in the Eucharist, for the refreshment
of the body which signifies that of the soul, can only be attained by
means of meat and drink. It is the same in this sacrament, because the
healing of the internal wounds cannot be perfectly signified save by
the application of the remedy to the various sources of the wounds.
Hence several actions are essential to the perfection of this
sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1: The unity of a complete whole is not destroyed by
reason of a diversity of matter or form in the parts of that whole.
Thus it is evident that there is neither the same matter nor the same
form in the flesh and in the bones of which one man is composed. In
like manner too, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and in this
sacrament, the diversity of matter and form does not destroy the unity
of the sacrament.

Reply to Objection 2: Although those actions are several simply, yet
they are united together in one complete action, viz. the anointing of
all the external senses, whence arises the infernal malady.

Reply to Objection 3: Although, in the Eucharist, if the priest die
after the consecration of the bread, another priest can go on with the
consecration of the wine, beginning where the other left off, or can
begin over again with fresh matter, in Extreme Unction he cannot begin
over again, but should always go on, because to anoint the same part a
second time would produce as much effect as if one were to consecrate a
host a second time, which ought by no means to be done. Nor does the
plurality of ministers destroy the unity of this sacrament, because
they only act as instruments, and the unity of a smith's work is not
destroyed by his using several hammers.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether this sacrament was instituted by Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament was not instituted by
Christ. For mention is made in the Gospel of the institution of those
sacraments which Christ instituted, for instance the Eucharist and
Baptism. But no mention is made of Extreme Unction. Therefore it was
not instituted by Christ.

Objection 2: Further, the Master says explicitly (Sent. iv, D, 23) that
it was instituted by the apostles. Therefore Christ did not institute
it Himself.

Objection 3: Further, Christ showed forth the sacraments which He
instituted, as in the case of the Eucharist and Baptism. But He did not
bestow this sacrament on anyone. Therefore He did not institute it
Himself.

On the contrary, The sacraments of the New Law are more excellent than
those of the Old Law. But all the sacraments of the Old Law were
instituted by God. Therefore much more do all the sacraments of the New
Law owe their institution to Christ Himself.

Further, to make an institution and to remove it belongs to the same
authority. Now the Church, who enjoys the same authority in the
successors of the apostles, as the apostles themselves possessed,
cannot do away with the sacrament of Extreme Unction. Therefore the
apostles did not institute it, but Christ Himself.

I answer that, There are two opinions on this point. For some hold that
this sacrament and Confirmation were not instituted by Christ Himself,
but were left by Him to be instituted by the apostles; for the reason
that these two sacraments, on account of the plenitude of grace
conferred in them, could not be instituted before the mission of the
Holy Ghost in perfect plenitude. Hence they are sacraments of the New
Law in such a way as not to be foreshadowed in the Old Law. But this
argument is not very cogent, since, just as Christ, before His Passion,
promised the mission of the Holy Ghost in His plenitude, so could He
institute these sacraments.

Wherefore others hold that Christ Himself instituted all the
sacraments, but that He Himself published some, which present greater
difficulty to our belief, while he reserved some to be published by the
apostles, such as Extreme Unction and Confirmation. This opinion seems
so much the more probable, as the sacraments belong to the foundation
of the Law, wherefore their institution pertains to the lawgiver;
besides, they derive their efficacy from their institution, which
efficacy is given them by God alone.

Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord did and said many things which are not
related in the Gospel. For the evangelists were intent on handing down
chiefly those things that were necessary for salvation or concerned the
building of the ecclesiastical edifice. Hence they related the
institution by Christ of Baptism, Penance, the Eucharist and orders,
rather than of Extreme Unction and Confirmation, which are not
necessary for salvation, nor do they concern the building or division
of the Church. As a matter of fact however an anointing done by the
apostles is mentioned in the Gospel (Mk. 6:13) where it is said that
they "anointed the sick with oil. "

Reply to Objection 2: The Master says it was instituted by the apostles
because its institution was made known to us by the teaching of the
apostles.

Reply to Objection 3: Christ did not show forth any sacrament except
such as He received by way of example: but He could not be a recipient
of Penance and Extreme Unction, since there was no sin in Him: hence He
did not show them forth.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament?

Objection 1: It would seem that olive oil is not a suitable matter for
this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained immediately to the state
of incorruption. Now incorruption is signified by balsam which is
contained in chrism. Therefore chrism would be a more suitable matter
for this sacrament.

Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is a spiritual healing. Now
spiritual healing is signified by the use of wine, as may be gathered
from the parable of the wounded man (Lk. 10:34). Therefore wine also
would be more suitable a matter for this sacrament.

Objection 3: Further, where there is the greater danger, the remedy
should be a common one. But olive oil is not a common remedy, since the
olive is not found in every country. Therefore, since this sacrament is
given to the dying, who are in the greatest danger, it seems that olive
oil is not a suitable matter.

On the contrary, oil is appointed (James 5:14) as the matter of this
sacrament. Now, properly speaking, oil is none but olive oil. Therefore
this is the matter of this sacrament.

Further, spiritual healing is signified by anointing with oil, as is
evident from Is. 1:6 where we read: " . . . swelling sores: they are
not . . . dressed nor fomented with oil. " Therefore the suitable matter
for this sacrament is oil.

I answer that, The spiritual healing, which is given at the end of
life, ought to be complete, since there is no other to follow; it ought
also to be gentle, lest hope, of which the dying stand in utmost need,
be shattered rather than fostered. Now oil has a softening effect, it
penetrates to the very heart of a thing, and spreads over it. Hence, in
both the foregoing respects, it is a suitable matter for this
sacrament. And since oil is, above all, the name of the liquid extract
of olives, for other liquids are only called oil from their likeness to
it, it follows that olive oil is the matter which should be employed in
this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1: The incorruption of glory is something not
contained in this sacrament: and there is no need for the matter to
signify such a thing. Hence it is not necessary for balsam to be
included in the matter of this sacrament, because on account of its
fragrance it is indicative of a good name, which is no longer
necessary, for its own sake, to those who are dying; they need only a
clear conscience which is signified by oil.

Reply to Objection 2: Wine heals by its roughness, oil by its softness,
wherefore healing with wine pertains to Penance rather than to this
sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3: Though olive oil is not produced everywhere, yet
it can easily be transported from one place to another. Moreover this
sacrament is not so necessary that the dying cannot obtain salvation
without it.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the oil ought to be consecrated?

Objection 1: It would seem that the oil need not be consecrated.
Because there is a sanctification in the use of this sacrament, through
the form of words. Therefore another sanctification is superfluous if
it be applied to the matter.

Objection 2: Further, the efficacy and signification of the sacraments
are in their very matter. But the signification of the effect of this
sacrament, is suitable to oil on account of its natural properties, and
the efficacy thereof is due to the Divine institution. Therefore its
matter does not need to be sanctified.

Objection 3: Further, Baptism is a more perfect sacrament than Extreme
Unction. But, so far as the essentials of the sacrament are concerned,
the baptismal matter needs no sanctification. Neither therefore does
the matter of Extreme Unction need to be sanctified.

On the contrary, In all other anointings the matter is previously
consecrated. Therefore since this sacrament is an anointing, it
requires consecrated matter.

I answer that, Some hold that mere oil is the matter of this sacrament,
and that the sacrament itself is perfected in the consecration of the
oil by the bishop. But this is clearly false since we proved when
treating of the Eucharist that that sacrament alone consists in the
consecration of the matter ([4892]Q[2], A[1], ad 2).

We must therefore say that this sacrament consists in the anointing
itself, just as Baptism consists in the washing, and that the matter of
this sacrament is consecrated oil. Three reasons may be assigned why
consecrated matter is needed in this sacrament and in certain others.
The first is that all sacramental efficacy is derived from Christ:
wherefore those sacraments which He Himself used, derived their
efficacy from His use of them, even as, by the contact of His flesh, He
bestowed the force of regeneration on the waters. But He did not use
this sacrament, nor any bodily anointing, wherefore in all anointings a
consecrated matter is required. The second reason is that this
sacrament confers a plenitude of grace, so as to take away not only sin
but also the remnants of sin, and bodily sickness. The third reason is
that its effect on the body, viz. bodily health, is not caused by a
natural property of the matter. wherefore it has to derive this
efficacy from being consecrated.

Reply to Objection 1: The first consecration sanctifies the matter in
itself, but the second regards rather the use of the matter considered
as actually producing its effect. Hence neither is superfluous, because
instruments also receive their efficacy from the craftsman, both when
they are made, and when they are used for action.

Reply to Objection 2: The efficacy which the sacrament derives from its
institution, is applied to this particular matter when it is
consecrated.

The Reply to the Third Objection is gathered from what has been said.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the matter of this sacrament need be consecrated by a bishop?

Objection 1: It would seem that the matter of this sacrament need not
be consecrated by a bishop. Because the consecration of the Eucharistic
elements surpasses that of the matter in this sacrament. But a priest
can consecrate the matter in the Eucharist. Therefore he can do so in
this sacrament also.

Objection 2: Further, in material works the higher art never prepares
the matter for the lower, because the art which applies the matter is
more excellent than that which prepares it, as stated in Phys. ii,
text. 25. Now a bishop is above a priest. Therefore he does not prepare
the matter of a sacrament which is applied by a priest. But a priest
dispenses this sacrament, as we shall state further on ([4893]Q[31]).
Therefore the consecration of the matter does not belong to a bishop.

On the contrary, In other anointings also the matter is consecrated by
a bishop. Therefore the same applies to this.

I answer that, The minister of a sacrament produces the effect, not by
his own power, as though he were the principal agent, but by the
efficacy of the sacrament which he dispenses. This efficacy comes, in
the first place, from Christ, and from Him flows down to others in due
order, viz. to the people through the medium of the ministers who
dispense the sacraments, and to the lower ministers through the medium
of the higher ministers who sanctify the matter. Wherefore, in all the
sacraments which require a sanctified matter, the first consecration of
the matter is performed by a bishop, and the application thereof
sometimes by a priest, in order to show that the priest's power is
derived from the bishop's, according to Ps. 132:2: "Like the precious
ointment on the head," i. e. Christ, "that ran down upon the beard of
Aaron" first, and then "to the skirt of his garment. "

Reply to Objection 1: The sacrament of the Eucharist consists in the
consecration of the matter and not in its use. Consequently, strictly
speaking, that which is the matter of the sacrament is not a
consecrated thing. Hence no consecration of the matter by a bishop is
required beforehand: but the altar and such like things, even the
priest himself, need to be consecrated, all of which can be done by
none but a bishop: so that in this sacrament also, the priest's power
is shown to be derived from the bishop's, as Dionysius observes (Eccl.
Hier. iii). The reason why a priest can perform that consecration of
matter which is a sacrament by itself, and not that which, as a
sacramental, is directed to a sacrament consisting in something used by
the faithful, is that in respect of Christ's true body no order is
above the priesthood, whereas, in respect of Christ's mystic body the
episcopate is above the priesthood, as we shall state further on
([4894]Q[40], A[4]).

Reply to Objection 2: The sacramental matter is not one that is made
into something else by him that uses it, as occurs in the mechanical
arts: it is one, in virtue of which something is done, so that it
partakes somewhat of the nature of an efficient cause, in so far as it
is the instrument of a Divine operation. Hence the matter needs to
acquire this virtue from a higher art or power, since among efficient
causes, the more prior the cause the more perfect it is, whereas in
material causes, the more prior the matter, the more imperfect it is.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether this sacrament has a form?

Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament has no form. Because,
since the efficacy of the sacraments is derived from their institution,
as also from their form, the latter must needs be appointed by the
institutor of the sacrament. But there is no account of the form of
this sacrament being instituted either by Christ or by the apostles.
Therefore this sacrament has no form.

Objection 2: Further, whatever is essential to a sacrament is observed
everywhere in the same way. Now nothing is so essential to a sacrament
that has a form, as that very form. Therefore, as in this sacrament
there is no form commonly used by all, since various words are in use,
it seems that this sacrament has no form.

Objection 3: Further, in Baptism no form is needed except for the
sanctification of the matter, because the water is "sanctified by the
word of life so as to wash sin away," as Hugh states (De Sacram. ii).
Now the matter of this sacrament is already consecrated. Therefore it
needs no form of words.

On the contrary, The Master says (Sent. iv, D, 1) that every sacrament
of the New Law consists in things and words. Now the words are the
sacramental form. Therefore, since this is a sacrament of the New Law,
it seems that it has a form.

Further, this is confirmed by the rite of the Universal Church, who
uses certain words in the bestowal of this sacrament.

I answer that, Some have held that no farm is essential to this
sacrament. This, however, seems derogatory to the effect of this
sacrament, since every sacrament signifies its effect. Now the matter
is indifferent as regards its effect, and consequently cannot be
determined to any particular effect save by the form of words. Hence in
all the sacraments of the New Law, since they effect what they signify,
there must needs be things and words. Moreover James (5:14,15) seems to
ascribe the whole force of this sacrament to prayer, which is the form
thereof, as we shall state further on (ad 2: AA[8],9). Wherefore the
foregoing opinion seems presumptuous and erroneous; and for that reason
we should hold with the common opinion that this, like all the other
sacraments, has a fixed form.

Reply to Objection 1: Holy Writ is proposed to all alike: and so, the
form of Baptism, which can be conferred by all, should be expressed in
Holy Writ, as also the form of the Eucharist, which in regard to that
sacrament, expresses faith which is necessary for salvation. Now the
forms of the other sacraments are not contained in Holy Writ, but were
handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our
Lord, as the Apostle declares (1 Cor. 11:23): "For I have received of
the Lord that which also I delivered to you," etc.

Reply to Objection 2: The words which are essential to the form, viz.
the prayer of deprecation, are said by all; but other words which
pertain to the well-being thereof, are not said by all.

Reply to Objection 3: The matter of Baptism has a certain
sanctification of its own from the very contact of our Saviour's flesh;
but the form of words sanctifies it so that it has a sanctifying force.
In like manner when the matter of this sacrament has been sanctified in
itself, it requires sanctification in its use, so that it may sanctify
actually.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the form of this sacrament should be expressed by way of assertion
or of petition?

Objection 1: It would seem that the form of this sacrament should be
expressed by way of assertion rather than of petition. Because all the
sacraments of the New Law have a sure effect. But sureness of effect is
not expressed in the sacramental forms except by way of assertion, as
when we say: "This is My body" or "I baptize thee. " Therefore the form
of this sacrament should be expressed as an assertion.

Objection 2: Further, the intention of the minister should be expressed
in the sacramental forms because it is essential to the sacrament. But
the intention of conferring a sacrament is not expressed except by an
assertion. Therefore, etc.

Objection 3: Further, in some churches the following words are said in
the conferring of this sacrament: "I anoint these eyes with consecrated
oil in the name of the Father," etc. , which is in keeping with the
forms of the other sacraments. Therefore it seems that such is the form
of this sacrament.

On the contrary, The form of a sacrament must needs be one that is
observed everywhere.