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.
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.
Summa Theologica
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. Now the words employed according to the custom of
all the churches are not those quoted above, but take the form of a
petition viz. : "Through this holy unction, and His most tender mercy,
may the Lord pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed, by sight,"
etc. Therefore the form of this sacrament is expressed as a petition.
Further, this seems to follow from the words of James, who ascribes the
effect of this sacrament to prayer: "The prayer of faith," says he
(5:15), "shall save the sick man. " Since then a sacrament takes its
efficacy from its form, it seems that the form of this sacrament is
expressed as a petition.
I answer that, The form of this sacrament is expressed by way of a
petition, as appears from the words of James, and from the custom of
the Roman Church, who uses no other than words of supplication in
conferring this sacrament. Several reasons are assigned for this:
first, because the recipient of this sacrament is deprived of his
strength, so that he needs to be helped by prayers; secondly, because
it is given to the dying, who are on the point of quitting the courts
of the Church, and rest in the hands of God alone, for which reason
they are committed to Him by prayer; thirdly, because the effect of
this sacrament is not such that it always results from the minister's
prayer, even when all essentials have been duly observed, as is the
case with the character in Baptism and Confirmation, transubstantiation
in the Eucharist, remission of sin in Penance (given contrition) which
remission is essential to the sacrament of Penance but not to this
sacrament. Consequently the form of this sacrament cannot be expressed
in the indicative mood, as in the sacraments just mentioned.
Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament, like the others mentioned,
considered in itself, is sure of its effect. yet this effect can be
hindered through the insincerity of the recipient (though by his
intention he submit to the sacrament), so that he receives no effect at
all. Hence there is no parity between this sacrament, and the others
wherein some effect always ensues.
Reply to Objection 2: The intention is sufficiently expressed by the
act which is mentioned in the form, viz. : "By this holy unction. "
Reply to Objection 3: These words in the indicative mood, which some
are wont to say before the prayer, are not the sacramental form, but
are a preparation for the form, in so far as they determine the
intention of the minister.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the foregoing prayer is a suitable form for this sacrament?
Objection 1: It would seem that the foregoing prayer is not a suitable
form for this sacrament. For in the forms of the other sacraments
mention is made of the matter, for instance in Confirmation, whereas
this is not done in the aforesaid words. Therefore it is not a suitable
form.
Objection 2: Further, just as the effect of this sacrament is bestowed
on us by the mercy of God, so are the effects of the other sacraments.
But mention is made in the forms of the other sacraments, not of the
Divine mercy, but rather of the Trinity and of the Passion. Therefore
the same should be done here.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is stated in the text (Sent. iv,
D, 23) to have a twofold effect. But in the foregoing words mention is
made of only one effect, viz. the remission of sins, and not of the
healing of the body to which end James directs the prayer of faith to
be made (James 5:15): "The prayer of faith shall save the sick man. "
Therefore the above form is unsuitable.
I answer that, The prayer given above [4895](A[8]) is a suitable form
for this sacrament, for it includes the sacrament by the words: "By
this holy unction," and that which works in the sacrament, viz. "the
mercy of God," and the effect, viz. "remission of sins. "
Reply to Objection 1: The matter of this sacrament may be understood in
the act of anointing, whereas the matter of Confirmation cannot be
implied by the act expressed in the form. Hence there is no parity.
Reply to Objection 2: The object of mercy is misery: and because this
sacrament is given when we are in a state of misery, i. e. of sickness,
mention of mercy is made in this rather than in other sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: The form should contain mention of the principal
effect, and of that which always ensues in virtue of the sacrament,
unless there be something lacking on the part of the recipient. Now
bodily health is not an effect of this kind, as we shall state further
on ([4896]Q[30], AA[1] ,2), though it does ensue at times, for which
reason James ascribes this effect to the prayer which is the form of
this sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT (THREE ARTICLES)
We must now consider the effect of this sacrament: under which head
there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?
(2) Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament?
(3) Whether this sacrament imprints a character?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that Extreme Unction does not avail for the
remission of sins. For when a thing can be attained by one means, no
other is needed. Now repentance is required in the recipient of Extreme
Unction for the remission of his sins. Therefore sins are not remitted
by Extreme Unction.
Objection 2: Further, there are no more than three things in sin, the
stain, the debt of punishment, and the remnants of sin. Now Extreme
Unction does not remit the stain without contrition, and this remits
sin even without Unction; nor does it remit the punishment, for if the
recipient recover, he is still bound to fulfill the satisfaction
enjoined; nor does it take away the remnants of sin, since the
dispositions remaining from preceding acts still remain, as may easily
be seen after recovery. Therefore remission of sins is by no means the
effect of Extreme Unction.
Objection 3: Further, remission of sins takes place, not successively,
but instantaneously. On the other hand, Extreme Unction is not done all
at once, since several anointings are required. Therefore the remission
of sins is not its effect.
On the contrary, It is written (James 5:15): "If he be in sins, they
shall be forgiven him. "
Further, every sacrament of the New Law confers grace. Now grace
effects the forgiveness of sins. Therefore since Extreme Unction is a
sacrament of the New Law, its effect is the remission of sins.
I answer that, Each sacrament was instituted for the purpose of one
principal effect, though it may, in consequence, produce other effects
besides. And since a sacrament causes what it signifies, the principal
effect of a sacrament must be gathered from its signification. Now this
sacrament is conferred by way of a kind of medicament, even as Baptism
is conferred by way of washing, and the purpose of a medicament is to
expel sickness. Hence the chief object of the institution of this
sacrament is to cure the sickness of sin. Therefore, just as Baptism is
a spiritual regeneration, and Penance, a spiritual resurrection, so
Extreme Unction is a spiritual healing or cure. Now just as a bodily
cure presupposes bodily life in the one who is cured, so does a
spiritual cure presuppose spiritual life. Hence this sacrament is not
an antidote to those defects which deprive man of spiritual life,
namely. original and mortal sin, but is a remedy for such defects as
weaken man spiritually, so as to deprive him of perfect vigor for acts
of the life of grace or of glory; which defects consist in nothing else
but a certain weakness and unfitness, the result in us of actual or
original sin. against which weakness man is strengthened by this
sacrament. Since, however, this strength is given by grace, which is
incompatible with sin, it follows that. in consequence, if it finds any
sin, either mortal or venial, it removes it as far as the guilt is
concerned, provided there be no obstacle on the part of the recipient;
just as we have stated to be the case with regard to the Eucharist and
Confirmation (TP, Q[73], A[7]; [4897]TP, Q[79], A[3]). Hence, too,
James speaks of the remission of sin as being conditional, for he says:
"If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him," viz. as to the guilt.
Because it does not always blot out sin, since it does not always find
any: but it always remits in respect of the aforesaid weakness which
some call the remnants of sin. Some, however, maintain that it is
instituted chiefly as a remedy for venial sin which cannot be cured
perfectly in this lifetime: for which reason the sacrament of the dying
is ordained specially against venial sin. But this does not seem to be
true, since Penance also blots out venial sins sufficiently during this
life as to their guilt, and that we cannot avoid them after doing
penance, does not cancel the effect of the previous penance; moreover
this is part of the weakness mentioned above.
Consequently we must say that the principal effect of this sacrament is
the remission of sin, as to its remnants, and, consequently, even as to
its guilt, if it find it.
Reply to Objection 1: Although the principal effect of a sacrament can
be obtained without actually receiving that sacrament (either without
any sacrament at all, or indirectly by means of some other sacrament),
yet it never can be obtained without the purpose of receiving that
sacrament. And so, since Penance was instituted chiefly against actual
sin, whichever other sacrament may blot out sin indirectly, it does not
exclude the necessity of Penance.
Reply to Objection 2: Extreme Unction remits sin in some way as to
those three things. For, although the stain of sin is not washed out
without contrition, yet this sacrament, by the grace which it bestows,
makes the movement of the free will towards sin to be one of
contrition, just as may occur in the Eucharist and Confirmation. Again
it diminishes the debt of temporal punishment; and this indirectly, in
as much as it takes away weakness, for a strong man bears the same
punishment more easily than a weak man. Hence it does not follow that
the measure of satisfaction is diminished. As to the remnants of sin,
they do not mean here those dispositions which result from acts, and
are inchoate habits so to speak, but a certain spiritual debility in
the mind, which debility being removed, though such like habits or
dispositions remain, the mind is not so easily prone to sin.
Reply to Objection 3: When many actions are ordained to one effect, the
last is formal with respect to all the others that precede, and acts by
virtue of them: wherefore by the last anointing is infused grace which
gives the sacrament its effect.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament?
Objection 1: It would seem that bodily health is not an effect of this
sacrament. For every sacrament is a spiritual remedy. Now a spiritual
remedy is ordained to spiritual health, just as a bodily remedy is
ordained to health of the body. Therefore bodily health is not an
effect of this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments always produce their effect in
those who approach them in the proper dispositions. Now sometimes the
recipient of this sacrament does not receive bodily health, no matter
how devoutly he receives it. Therefore bodily health is not its effect.
Objection 3: Further, the efficacy of this sacrament is notified to us
in the fifth chapter of James. Now healing is ascribed there as the
effect, not of the anointing, but of the prayer, for he says: "The
prayer of faith shall save the sick man. " Therefore bodily healing is
not an effect of this sacrament.
On the contrary, The operation of the Church is more efficacious since
Christ's Passion than before. Now, before the Passion, those whom the
apostles anointed with oil were healed (Mk. 6:13). Therefore unction
has its effect now in healing bodies.
Further, the sacraments produce their effect by signifying it. Now
Baptism signifies and effects a spiritual washing, through the bodily
washing in which it consists outwardly. Therefore Extreme Unction
signifies and causes a spiritual healing through the bodily healing
which it effects externally.
I answer that, Just as Baptism causes a spiritual cleansing from
spiritual stains by means of a bodily washing, so this sacrament causes
an inward healing by means of an outward sacramental healing: and even
as the baptismal washing has the effect of a bodily washing, since it
effects even a bodily cleansing, so too, Extreme Unction has the effect
of a bodily remedy, namely a healing of the body. But there is a
difference, for as much as the bodily washing causes a bodily cleansing
by a natural property of the bodily element, and consequently always
causes it, whereas Extreme Unction causes a bodily healing, not by a
natural property of the matter, but by the Divine power which works
reasonably. And since reasonable working never produces a secondary
effect, except in so far as it is required for the principal effect, it
follows that a bodily healing does not always ensue from this
sacrament, but only when it is requisite for the spiritual healing: and
then it produces it always, provided there be no obstacle on the part
of the recipient.
Reply to Objection 1: This objection proves that bodily health is not
the principal effect of this sacrament: and this is true.
The Reply to the Second Objection is clear from what has been said
above (cf. [4898] Q[29], A[8]).
Reply to Objection 3: This prayer is the form of this sacrament as
stated above ([4899]Q[29], AA[8],9). Hence, so far as its form is
concerned, this sacrament derives from it its efficacy in healing the
body.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament imprints a character?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament imprints a character.
For a character is a distinctive sign. Now just as one who is baptized
is distinguished from one who is not so is one who is anointed, from
one who is not. Therefore, just as Baptism imprints a character so does
Extreme Unction.
Objection 2: Further, there is an anointing in the sacraments or order
and Confirmation, as there is in this sacrament. But a character is
imprinted in those sacraments. Therefore a character is imprinted in
this one also.
Objection 3: Further, every sacrament contains something that is a
reality only, something that is a sacrament only, and something that is
both reality and sacrament. Now nothing in this sacrament can be
assigned as both reality and sacrament except a character. Therefore in
this sacrament also, a character is imprinted.
On the contrary, No sacrament that imprints a character is repeated.
But this sacrament is repeated as we shall state further on
([4900]Q[33]). Therefore it does not imprint a character.
Further, a sacramental character causes a distinction among those who
are in the present Church.
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. Now the words employed according to the custom of
all the churches are not those quoted above, but take the form of a
petition viz. : "Through this holy unction, and His most tender mercy,
may the Lord pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed, by sight,"
etc. Therefore the form of this sacrament is expressed as a petition.
Further, this seems to follow from the words of James, who ascribes the
effect of this sacrament to prayer: "The prayer of faith," says he
(5:15), "shall save the sick man. " Since then a sacrament takes its
efficacy from its form, it seems that the form of this sacrament is
expressed as a petition.
I answer that, The form of this sacrament is expressed by way of a
petition, as appears from the words of James, and from the custom of
the Roman Church, who uses no other than words of supplication in
conferring this sacrament. Several reasons are assigned for this:
first, because the recipient of this sacrament is deprived of his
strength, so that he needs to be helped by prayers; secondly, because
it is given to the dying, who are on the point of quitting the courts
of the Church, and rest in the hands of God alone, for which reason
they are committed to Him by prayer; thirdly, because the effect of
this sacrament is not such that it always results from the minister's
prayer, even when all essentials have been duly observed, as is the
case with the character in Baptism and Confirmation, transubstantiation
in the Eucharist, remission of sin in Penance (given contrition) which
remission is essential to the sacrament of Penance but not to this
sacrament. Consequently the form of this sacrament cannot be expressed
in the indicative mood, as in the sacraments just mentioned.
Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament, like the others mentioned,
considered in itself, is sure of its effect. yet this effect can be
hindered through the insincerity of the recipient (though by his
intention he submit to the sacrament), so that he receives no effect at
all. Hence there is no parity between this sacrament, and the others
wherein some effect always ensues.
Reply to Objection 2: The intention is sufficiently expressed by the
act which is mentioned in the form, viz. : "By this holy unction. "
Reply to Objection 3: These words in the indicative mood, which some
are wont to say before the prayer, are not the sacramental form, but
are a preparation for the form, in so far as they determine the
intention of the minister.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the foregoing prayer is a suitable form for this sacrament?
Objection 1: It would seem that the foregoing prayer is not a suitable
form for this sacrament. For in the forms of the other sacraments
mention is made of the matter, for instance in Confirmation, whereas
this is not done in the aforesaid words. Therefore it is not a suitable
form.
Objection 2: Further, just as the effect of this sacrament is bestowed
on us by the mercy of God, so are the effects of the other sacraments.
But mention is made in the forms of the other sacraments, not of the
Divine mercy, but rather of the Trinity and of the Passion. Therefore
the same should be done here.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is stated in the text (Sent. iv,
D, 23) to have a twofold effect. But in the foregoing words mention is
made of only one effect, viz. the remission of sins, and not of the
healing of the body to which end James directs the prayer of faith to
be made (James 5:15): "The prayer of faith shall save the sick man. "
Therefore the above form is unsuitable.
I answer that, The prayer given above [4895](A[8]) is a suitable form
for this sacrament, for it includes the sacrament by the words: "By
this holy unction," and that which works in the sacrament, viz. "the
mercy of God," and the effect, viz. "remission of sins. "
Reply to Objection 1: The matter of this sacrament may be understood in
the act of anointing, whereas the matter of Confirmation cannot be
implied by the act expressed in the form. Hence there is no parity.
Reply to Objection 2: The object of mercy is misery: and because this
sacrament is given when we are in a state of misery, i. e. of sickness,
mention of mercy is made in this rather than in other sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: The form should contain mention of the principal
effect, and of that which always ensues in virtue of the sacrament,
unless there be something lacking on the part of the recipient. Now
bodily health is not an effect of this kind, as we shall state further
on ([4896]Q[30], AA[1] ,2), though it does ensue at times, for which
reason James ascribes this effect to the prayer which is the form of
this sacrament.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE EFFECT OF THIS SACRAMENT (THREE ARTICLES)
We must now consider the effect of this sacrament: under which head
there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?
(2) Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament?
(3) Whether this sacrament imprints a character?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Extreme Unction avails for the remission of sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that Extreme Unction does not avail for the
remission of sins. For when a thing can be attained by one means, no
other is needed. Now repentance is required in the recipient of Extreme
Unction for the remission of his sins. Therefore sins are not remitted
by Extreme Unction.
Objection 2: Further, there are no more than three things in sin, the
stain, the debt of punishment, and the remnants of sin. Now Extreme
Unction does not remit the stain without contrition, and this remits
sin even without Unction; nor does it remit the punishment, for if the
recipient recover, he is still bound to fulfill the satisfaction
enjoined; nor does it take away the remnants of sin, since the
dispositions remaining from preceding acts still remain, as may easily
be seen after recovery. Therefore remission of sins is by no means the
effect of Extreme Unction.
Objection 3: Further, remission of sins takes place, not successively,
but instantaneously. On the other hand, Extreme Unction is not done all
at once, since several anointings are required. Therefore the remission
of sins is not its effect.
On the contrary, It is written (James 5:15): "If he be in sins, they
shall be forgiven him. "
Further, every sacrament of the New Law confers grace. Now grace
effects the forgiveness of sins. Therefore since Extreme Unction is a
sacrament of the New Law, its effect is the remission of sins.
I answer that, Each sacrament was instituted for the purpose of one
principal effect, though it may, in consequence, produce other effects
besides. And since a sacrament causes what it signifies, the principal
effect of a sacrament must be gathered from its signification. Now this
sacrament is conferred by way of a kind of medicament, even as Baptism
is conferred by way of washing, and the purpose of a medicament is to
expel sickness. Hence the chief object of the institution of this
sacrament is to cure the sickness of sin. Therefore, just as Baptism is
a spiritual regeneration, and Penance, a spiritual resurrection, so
Extreme Unction is a spiritual healing or cure. Now just as a bodily
cure presupposes bodily life in the one who is cured, so does a
spiritual cure presuppose spiritual life. Hence this sacrament is not
an antidote to those defects which deprive man of spiritual life,
namely. original and mortal sin, but is a remedy for such defects as
weaken man spiritually, so as to deprive him of perfect vigor for acts
of the life of grace or of glory; which defects consist in nothing else
but a certain weakness and unfitness, the result in us of actual or
original sin. against which weakness man is strengthened by this
sacrament. Since, however, this strength is given by grace, which is
incompatible with sin, it follows that. in consequence, if it finds any
sin, either mortal or venial, it removes it as far as the guilt is
concerned, provided there be no obstacle on the part of the recipient;
just as we have stated to be the case with regard to the Eucharist and
Confirmation (TP, Q[73], A[7]; [4897]TP, Q[79], A[3]). Hence, too,
James speaks of the remission of sin as being conditional, for he says:
"If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him," viz. as to the guilt.
Because it does not always blot out sin, since it does not always find
any: but it always remits in respect of the aforesaid weakness which
some call the remnants of sin. Some, however, maintain that it is
instituted chiefly as a remedy for venial sin which cannot be cured
perfectly in this lifetime: for which reason the sacrament of the dying
is ordained specially against venial sin. But this does not seem to be
true, since Penance also blots out venial sins sufficiently during this
life as to their guilt, and that we cannot avoid them after doing
penance, does not cancel the effect of the previous penance; moreover
this is part of the weakness mentioned above.
Consequently we must say that the principal effect of this sacrament is
the remission of sin, as to its remnants, and, consequently, even as to
its guilt, if it find it.
Reply to Objection 1: Although the principal effect of a sacrament can
be obtained without actually receiving that sacrament (either without
any sacrament at all, or indirectly by means of some other sacrament),
yet it never can be obtained without the purpose of receiving that
sacrament. And so, since Penance was instituted chiefly against actual
sin, whichever other sacrament may blot out sin indirectly, it does not
exclude the necessity of Penance.
Reply to Objection 2: Extreme Unction remits sin in some way as to
those three things. For, although the stain of sin is not washed out
without contrition, yet this sacrament, by the grace which it bestows,
makes the movement of the free will towards sin to be one of
contrition, just as may occur in the Eucharist and Confirmation. Again
it diminishes the debt of temporal punishment; and this indirectly, in
as much as it takes away weakness, for a strong man bears the same
punishment more easily than a weak man. Hence it does not follow that
the measure of satisfaction is diminished. As to the remnants of sin,
they do not mean here those dispositions which result from acts, and
are inchoate habits so to speak, but a certain spiritual debility in
the mind, which debility being removed, though such like habits or
dispositions remain, the mind is not so easily prone to sin.
Reply to Objection 3: When many actions are ordained to one effect, the
last is formal with respect to all the others that precede, and acts by
virtue of them: wherefore by the last anointing is infused grace which
gives the sacrament its effect.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether bodily health is an effect of this sacrament?
Objection 1: It would seem that bodily health is not an effect of this
sacrament. For every sacrament is a spiritual remedy. Now a spiritual
remedy is ordained to spiritual health, just as a bodily remedy is
ordained to health of the body. Therefore bodily health is not an
effect of this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments always produce their effect in
those who approach them in the proper dispositions. Now sometimes the
recipient of this sacrament does not receive bodily health, no matter
how devoutly he receives it. Therefore bodily health is not its effect.
Objection 3: Further, the efficacy of this sacrament is notified to us
in the fifth chapter of James. Now healing is ascribed there as the
effect, not of the anointing, but of the prayer, for he says: "The
prayer of faith shall save the sick man. " Therefore bodily healing is
not an effect of this sacrament.
On the contrary, The operation of the Church is more efficacious since
Christ's Passion than before. Now, before the Passion, those whom the
apostles anointed with oil were healed (Mk. 6:13). Therefore unction
has its effect now in healing bodies.
Further, the sacraments produce their effect by signifying it. Now
Baptism signifies and effects a spiritual washing, through the bodily
washing in which it consists outwardly. Therefore Extreme Unction
signifies and causes a spiritual healing through the bodily healing
which it effects externally.
I answer that, Just as Baptism causes a spiritual cleansing from
spiritual stains by means of a bodily washing, so this sacrament causes
an inward healing by means of an outward sacramental healing: and even
as the baptismal washing has the effect of a bodily washing, since it
effects even a bodily cleansing, so too, Extreme Unction has the effect
of a bodily remedy, namely a healing of the body. But there is a
difference, for as much as the bodily washing causes a bodily cleansing
by a natural property of the bodily element, and consequently always
causes it, whereas Extreme Unction causes a bodily healing, not by a
natural property of the matter, but by the Divine power which works
reasonably. And since reasonable working never produces a secondary
effect, except in so far as it is required for the principal effect, it
follows that a bodily healing does not always ensue from this
sacrament, but only when it is requisite for the spiritual healing: and
then it produces it always, provided there be no obstacle on the part
of the recipient.
Reply to Objection 1: This objection proves that bodily health is not
the principal effect of this sacrament: and this is true.
The Reply to the Second Objection is clear from what has been said
above (cf. [4898] Q[29], A[8]).
Reply to Objection 3: This prayer is the form of this sacrament as
stated above ([4899]Q[29], AA[8],9). Hence, so far as its form is
concerned, this sacrament derives from it its efficacy in healing the
body.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament imprints a character?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament imprints a character.
For a character is a distinctive sign. Now just as one who is baptized
is distinguished from one who is not so is one who is anointed, from
one who is not. Therefore, just as Baptism imprints a character so does
Extreme Unction.
Objection 2: Further, there is an anointing in the sacraments or order
and Confirmation, as there is in this sacrament. But a character is
imprinted in those sacraments. Therefore a character is imprinted in
this one also.
Objection 3: Further, every sacrament contains something that is a
reality only, something that is a sacrament only, and something that is
both reality and sacrament. Now nothing in this sacrament can be
assigned as both reality and sacrament except a character. Therefore in
this sacrament also, a character is imprinted.
On the contrary, No sacrament that imprints a character is repeated.
But this sacrament is repeated as we shall state further on
([4900]Q[33]). Therefore it does not imprint a character.
Further, a sacramental character causes a distinction among those who
are in the present Church.
