D. 23 - On extreme unction

After the Master has examined baptism, which is the sacrament of those entering, and confirmation, Eucharist, and penance, which are sacraments of those progressing, here in the fifth place he considers extreme unction, which is the sacrament of those departing. And this is divided into two parts: in the first he considers the sacrament itself; in the second, its use, at: some ask whether this sacrament can be repeated. (Sententiae IV, 23.4 (130). 1.)

The first is in two parts: in the first part he distinguishes this sacrament from other anointings; in the second, he determines all the things that pertain to this sacrament, at: we read that this sacrament of anointing the sick was instituted by the Apostles. (Sent. IV, 23.3 (129). 1.)

And concerning this he does three things: first, he examines its institution; second, its effect, at: in this passage, it is shown that this sacrament was instituted for a double cause; (Sent. IV, 23.3 (129). 2.) third, the resemblance of this sacrament to the others, at: And as in other sacraments, so also in this one, the sacrament is one thing, the thing of the sacrament is another. (Sent. IV, 23.3 (129). 3.)

Some ask whether this sacrament can be repeated. Here he considers the use of this sacrament; and it is divided into two according to the two opinions he touches on concerning the repetition of this sacrament, and of others as a result; the second opinion is shown here: but some want it to be understood that each and every sacrament is not to be repeated. (Sent. IV, 23.4 (130). 4.)

Here there are two questions. First, concerning the sacrament of extreme unction itself; second, its administration and use.

Question 1

On the sacrament of extreme unction

Concerning the first, four questions arise:

first, about extreme unction itself;

• second, its effect;
• third, its matter;
• fourth, its form.
• Article 1

On extreme unction itself

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 65, a. 1.) It seems that extreme unction is not a sacrament. For just as oil is used for the sick, so also for catechumens. But the anointing that is done with oil for catechumens is not a sacrament. Therefore, neither is extreme unction, which is done with oil for the sick.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the sacraments of the old law were signs of the sacraments of the new law. But extreme unction does not have any prefiguring in the old law. Therefore, it is not a sacrament of the new law.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1 (PG 3:503).) every sacrament is either for purifying or illuminating or perfecting. But extreme unction is not considered as purifying, nor as illuminating, for this is only attributed to baptism; nor as perfecting, for this, according to him, pertains to chrismation and Eucharist. Therefore, extreme unction is not a sacrament.

On the contrary (1), the Church’s sacraments sufficiently supply the defects of men according to every state. But for those departing, there is no other help but extreme unction. Therefore, it is a sacrament.

Furthermore (2), sacraments, as was said above in Distinction 1, are nothing other than spiritual medicines. But extreme unction is a kind of spiritual medicine, for it works to the remission of sins, as it says in James 5:15. Therefore, it is a sacrament.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that extreme unction is not one sacrament. For the unity of a thing is from its matter and form, since a thing has unity and being from the same. But the form of this sacrament is often repeated even on the same occasion, and the matter is applied many times to the different body parts of one person anointed. Therefore, it is not one sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the anointing is itself the sacrament: for it is ridiculous to say that oil is a sacrament. But there are several anointings. Therefore, there are several sacraments.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, one sacrament must be completed by one minister. But in certain cases extreme unction cannot be completed by one minister, as when the priest dies after the first anointing, so that another priest must proceed further. Therefore, extreme unction is not one sacrament.

On the contrary (1), just as immersion is related to baptism, so is anointing related to this sacrament. But several immersions are one sacrament in baptism. Therefore, several anointings are one sacrament.

Furthermore (2), if it were not one sacrament, then once the first anointing was done, it would not be necessary for the completion of the sacrament that a second one be done, for every sacrament has complete being in itself. But this is false. Therefore, it is one sacrament.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that this sacrament was not instituted by Christ. (Parallel: In IV Sent. d. 2, q. 1, a. 4, qa. 4, ad 1.) For the institution of those sacraments that Christ instituted is mentioned in the Gospel, as is the case with the Eucharist and baptism. But no mention is made of extreme unction. Therefore, it was not instituted by Christ.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Master expressly says in the text that it was instituted by the apostles. Therefore, Christ did not institute it himself.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which Christ instituted, he also displayed himself. But he never showed this sacrament to anyone. Therefore, he did not institute it himself.

On the contrary (1), sacraments of the new law are nobler than sacraments of the old law. But all sacraments of the old law were instituted by God himself. Therefore, much more do all the sacraments of the new law have their institution from Christ himself.

Furthermore (2), it belongs to the same person to establish and to remove what has been established. But the Church, which in the successors of the apostles has the same authority the apostles had, cannot take away the sacrament of extreme unction. Therefore, the apostles did not institute it, but Christ himself.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that some of those things that the Church works visibly are sacraments, like baptism, and some are sacramentals, like exorcism, as was said above in Distinction 6. And the difference between them is this, that a sacrament is the name for that action of the Church that attains its principally intended effect in the administering of the sacraments; but a sacramental is the name for that action that, although it does not attain to that effect, nevertheless is ordered somehow to that principal action. Now the intended effect in the administering of the sacraments is the healing of the disease of sin: this is all the fruit, that sin may be taken away (Is 27:9). And therefore since extreme unction attains to this effect, as is clear from James’s words, nor is it ordered to any other sacrament as something attached to it, it is evident that extreme unction is not a sacramental, but a sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: The oil that catechumens are anointed with does not lead to the remission of sins by its anointing, for this pertains to baptism, but this anointing disposes in some way to baptism, as was said above in Distinction 6. And therefore that anointing is not a sacrament like extreme unction.

Reply Obj. 2: This sacrament immediately disposes a person to glory, since it is given to those departing from the body. And since in the old law it was still not the time for attaining glory, since the law led no one to glory, (A variant reading has perfectum instead of gloriam, being thus reminiscent of Hebrews 7:19.) therefore, that sacrament did not have to be prefigured by any sacrament corresponding to it as by a figure of the same genus, although it was figured in a certain way by remote figures in all the cures that are read about in the Old Testament.

Reply Obj. 3: Dionysius does not make any mention of extreme unction, nor of penance or matrimony, because he did not intend to define the sacraments except insofar as he could make known by them the ordered disposition of the ecclesiastical hierarchy as to the ministers and actions of the ministers, and their recipients. Nevertheless, since by extreme unction a person obtains grace and the remission of sins, there is no doubt that it has illuminative and purifying power like baptism, although not so fully.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that there are three ways that something can be called one in number, speaking per se. One way is as indivisible, which is not many either actually or potentially, like a point or the unit. Another way is as a continuum, which is in fact actually one but potentially many, like a line. But the third way is as something complete which is constituted from many parts, like a house, which is many things in a certain way even in act, but those many come together in something one: and this is how any sacrament is said to be one, inasmuch as the many things that exist in one sacrament are united in signifying and causing one thing; for a sacrament causes by signifying. And therefore when one action suffices for the complete signification, the oneness of the sacrament consists in that action alone, as is seen in confirmation. But when the signification of the sacrament can be in both one and many actions, then the sacrament can be completed by either one act or many, as baptism is complete with one immersion or with three. For the cleansing that is signified in baptism can exist through one immersion or many. But when the complete signification cannot exist except by many actions, then many actions are required for the completion of the sacrament, as is seen in the Eucharist, for the physical refreshment, which signifies the spiritual one, can only happen through food and drink. And it is similar in this sacrament: for the healing of interior wounds cannot be signified perfectly except by applying the medicine to the different roots of the wounds. And therefore several actions are required for the completion of this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: The perfect oneness of a whole is not destroyed by the diversity of matter or form that exists in the parts of the whole, just as it is evident that neither the same matter nor the same form belong to flesh and bones, from which one man is constituted. And likewise also in the sacrament of the Eucharist. And in this sacrament a plurality of matter and form does not destroy the unity of the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 2: Although those actions are simply many, nevertheless they are united in one complete action, which is the anointing of all the outward senses, from which the inner illness is drawn.

Reply Obj. 3: Although in the Eucharist, if the priest should die after the consecration of the bread, another priest can begin where he left off with the consecration of the wine, or even begin from the beginning with new matter, nevertheless, in extreme unction he cannot begin from the beginning, but must always continue. For anointing a part that has already been anointed works as much as if the same host were consecrated twice, which should never be done. Nor, however, does a plurality of ministers take away the oneness of the sacrament, for they only work instrumentally, as also the change of hammers does not destroy the unity of a craftsman’s work.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that there are two opinions about this. For certain people say that Christ did not himself institute this sacrament and confirmation, but he sent the apostles to institute them, for because of the fullness of grace that is conferred in these two sacraments, they could not have been instituted before the fullest sending of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they are sacraments of the new law in such a way that they had no figure in the old law. But this argument is not very compelling, for just as Christ promised the full sending of the Holy Spirit before his Passion, so he could also have instituted these sacraments. And therefore others say that Christ instituted all the sacraments himself, but some of them he promulgated himself, which are the ones more difficult to believe, while he reserved others to the apostles to promulgate, like extreme unction and confirmation. And this opinion seems more probable, for the sacraments pertain to the foundation of the law, and therefore their institution pertains to the law-giver; and again because they have efficacy from their institution, which can only be divinely done.

Reply Obj. 1: The Lord did and said many things that are not contained in the Gospels. For the Evangelists particularly took care to hand down those things that pertain to the necessity of salvation and the order of ecclesiastical disposition. And thus they told of the institution of baptism and penance and the Eucharist and holy orders done by Christ, rather than extreme unction and confirmation, neither of which are necessary to salvation, nor pertain to the Church’s disposition or distinction. Nevertheless, mention is also made in the Gospel of the anointing with oil in Mark 6:13, where it is said that the apostles anointed the sick with oil.

Reply Obj. 2: The Master says it was instituted by the apostles, because its institution was promulgated to us through the teaching of the apostles.

Reply Obj. 3: As was said in the previous distinction, Question 2, Article 3, Subquestion 3, Christ did not display any sacraments but the ones he received as an example. Now to receive penance and extreme unction was not appropriate for him, for he was without sin; and therefore, he did not display these.

Article 2

The effects of extreme unction

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallels: above, d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, qa. 3, ad 2; d. 2, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 4; SCG IV, ch. 73; de Malo, q. 7, a. 11, ad 14.) It seems that extreme unction does not avail to the remission of sins. For when one thing can bring about an effect, another is not required. But in someone who receives extreme unction, penance is required for the remission of sins. Therefore, sins are not forgiven by extreme unction.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in sin there are only three things: the stain, the obligation to punishment, and the remains of sin. But by extreme unction sin is not forgiven in its stain without contrition, which forgives even without an anointing; nor again as to punishment, for if he recovers afterward, he is bound to complete the satisfaction enjoined; nor as to what sin leaves behind, for the dispositions left from the previous acts still remain, as is seen after the recovery. Therefore, the remission of sins does not happen in any way by extreme unction.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the remission of sins does not happen successively, but in an instant. But extreme unction is not done all at one time, for many different anointings are required. Therefore, its effect is not the remission of sins.

On the contrary (1), it is said in James 5:15: if he is in sins, they will be forgiven him.

Furthermore (2), every sacrament of the new law confers grace. But the remission of sins happens by grace. Therefore, extreme unction, since it is a sacrament of the new law, works to the remission of sins.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that physical health is not an effect of this sacrament. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 73.) For every sacrament is a spiritual medicine. But spiritual medicine is ordered to spiritual health, just as physical medicine is to physical health. Therefore, physical health is not an effect of this sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a sacrament always has its effect in anyone who does not receive it falsely. But sometimes the person receiving this sacrament is not physically healed, although he receives it devoutly. Therefore, physical health is not its effect.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the efficacy of this sacrament is shown to us in James 5:15. But there the effect of health is not attributed to anointing, but to prayer, for he says: the prayer of faith will heal the sick. Therefore, physical healing is not an effect of this sacrament.

On the contrary (1), the Church’s working has greater efficacy after the Passion of Christ than before. But those anointed with oil were healed by the apostles before the Passion, as is clear from Mark 6:13. Therefore, it also has its effect now in physical healing.

Furthermore (2), the sacraments effect by signifying. But baptism signifies and effects a spiritual cleansing by physical cleansing, which is done outwardly. Therefore, by the physical healing that extreme unction effects outwardly, it signifies and causes spiritual healing.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that this sacrament impresses a character. (Parallel: below, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 3, ad 1.) For a character is a distinctive sign. But as the baptized is distinguished from the non-baptized, so is the anointed distinguished from the unanointed. Therefore, as baptism impresses a character, so does extreme unction.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the sacraments of holy orders and confirmation there is an anointing, just as in this sacrament. But in them a character is imprinted. Therefore, also in this sacrament.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in every sacrament there is something that is reality alone, something that is sacrament alone, and something that is reality-and-sacrament. But nothing can be assigned in this sacrament as reality-and-sacrament except a character. Therefore, in this sacrament a character is imprinted.

On the contrary (1), no sacrament that imprints a character is repeated. But this sacrament is repeated, as will be said. Therefore, it does not imprint a character.

Furthermore (2), the distinction that is made according to a sacramental character is the distinction of those who are in the present Church. But extreme unction is conferred on someone who is leaving the present Church. Therefore, it does not befit it to confer a character.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that any sacrament is instituted principally for one effect; although it can also lead to other effects as a result, for a sacrament brings about what it figures. Therefore, a sacrament’s principal effect must be gathered from its very signification.

But this sacrament is applied according to the mode of a certain medication, just as baptism is by the mode of cleansing. Now medicine is for dispelling illness; and so this sacrament is principally instituted for healing the illness of sins: so that as baptism is a certain spiritual regeneration and penance a certain spiritual revival, so also extreme unction is a certain spiritual healing or medication. Now just as physical medication presupposes physical life in the one medicated, so spiritual medication presupposes spiritual life; and so this sacrament is not given against defects by which the spiritual life is destroyed, namely, original and mortal sin, but against those defects by which a person is spiritually ill and does not have the complete strength for acts of grace or glory. And this defect is nothing other than a certain weakness and unsuitability that is left in us from actual or original sin; and against this weakness a person is strengthened by this sacrament. But because grace causes this strength, which is not compatible with sin, therefore as a result if it encounters any sin, whether mortal or venial in guilt, it takes it away, as long as no obstacle is placed on the part of the recipient, as was also said above about Eucharist and confirmation. And therefore James also speaks conditionally about the remission of sin as to guilt, saying: if he is in sin, they shall be forgiven him (James 5:15). For it does not always blot out sin, since it does not always find it, but it always remits as to the weakness mentioned, which some people call the remains of sin.

But some people say that it was chiefly instituted because of venial sin, which indeed cannot be perfectly healed during this life; and this is why the sacrament of those departing is specially directed against venial sin. But this does not seem true, for penance also sufficiently wipes away venial sin in this life as to guilt. And the fact that they cannot be avoided after one has done penance does not deny the effect of the previous penance; and again this pertains to the weakness mentioned. Therefore, it should be said that the chief effect of this sacrament is the remission of sins as to the traces left by sin; but as to guilt, if it encounters it, as a result.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the principal effect of some sacrament can be had without the actual reception of that sacrament, either without the sacrament, or as a result of another sacrament, still it can never be had without the intention of this sacrament. And therefore because penance was principally instituted against actual guilt, any other sacrament that effaces actual guilt as a result does not exclude the necessity of penance.

Reply Obj. 2: Extreme unction remits sin in some way in these three respects. For although fault as to the stain is not forgiven without contrition, nevertheless by the grace that this sacrament pours out, it causes that movement of free will against sin to be contrition, as also can happen in the Eucharist and confirmation. Likewise also it forgives the debt of temporal punishment, but as a consequence, inasmuch as it takes away the weakness, for a strong man carries the same punishment more easily than a weak man; therefore, it is not necessary that the measure of satisfaction be diminished because of this. Now, the remains of sin do not mean here the dispositions left behind by acts, which are a kind of inchoate habit, but rather a certain spiritual weakness existing in the mind, and once it is taken away, even if the same habits and dispositions remain, the mind cannot be so inclined to sin.

Reply Obj. 3: When there are many actions ordered to one effect, the last is formal with respect to all the previous ones, and it acts in virtue of them. And therefore grace is infused in the final anointing, which supplies the sacrament with its effect.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that just as through a physical washing baptism causes a spiritual purification from spiritual stains, so this sacrament by an outward sacramental medication causes an interior healing. And just as the cleansing of baptism has the effect of physical cleansing, for it also causes physical purification, so extreme unction also has an effect of physical medication, namely, physical healing. But this is the difference: for physical washing causes physical cleansing from the natural properties of the element, and so it always does this; but extreme unction does not cause physical healing by the natural properties of the matter, but by divine power, which works rationally. And since reason working never brings about a secondary effect unless it is expedient to the principal one, this is why physical healing does not always follow from this sacrament, but only when it is expedient to spiritual healing; and then it does always lead to it, as long as there is no obstacle on the part of the recipient.

Reply Obj. 1: That objection proves that physical healing is not the principal effect of this sacrament, and that is true.

The answer to the second objection is clear from what has been said.

Reply Obj. 3: That prayer is the form of this sacrament, as will be said, and therefore this sacrament, considered in itself, has efficacy for physical healing from its form.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that, as was said above in Distinction 4, Question 1, Article 4, Subquestions 1 and 2, a character is only imprinted in those sacraments in which a person is deputed to something sacred. But this sacrament is only a remedy, and a person is not deputed by it to do or receive anything sacred; and thus no character is imprinted in it.

Reply Obj. 1: A character makes a distinction of states as to those things that must be done in the Church; and a person does not have such a distinction from others by the fact that he has been anointed.

Reply Obj. 2: The anointing that is done in holy orders and confirmation is the anointing of consecration, by which a man is deputed to a certain sacrament. But this anointing is the anointing of medication, and so it is not the same.

Reply Obj. 3: In this sacrament the reality-and-sacrament is not a character, but a kind of interior devotion which is a spiritual anointing.

Article 3

On the matter of extreme unction

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 73.) It seems that olive oil is not the appropriate matter for this sacrament. For this sacrament orders one immediately to incorruption. But incorruption is signified by balsam, which is used in chrism. Therefore, chrism would be more appropriate matter for this sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament is a spiritual medication. But spiritual medication is signified by the application of wine, as is clear from Luke 10:34, in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Therefore, wine would be a more appropriate matter for this sacrament.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, where there is greater danger, a more common remedy should be applied. But olive oil is not a common remedy, for it is not found in every land. Therefore, since this sacrament is given to those departing, who are in the greatest danger, it seems that olive oil is not the appropriate matter.

On the contrary (1), in James 5:14, oil is determined as the matter of this sacrament. But oil is properly said only of olive oil. Therefore, it is the matter of this sacrament.

Furthermore (2), spiritual healing is signified by the anointing of oil, as is clear from Isaiah 1:6, where it says, swollen wounds . . . cured with medicine nor softened with oil. Therefore, the appropriate matter of this sacrament is oil.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it need not be consecrated oil. (Parallel: ST III, q. 72, a. 3.) For this sacrament has one sanctification, by the form of words at its use. Therefore, another sanctification would be superfluous, if it were done to its matter.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, sacraments have efficacy and signification in their very matter. But the signification of the effect of this sacrament is suited to oil by its natural property, while its efficacy is from divine institution. Therefore, no sanctification of the matter is necessary

Obj. 3: Furthermore, baptism is a more perfect sacrament than extreme unction. But in baptism the sanctification of the matter is not prerequisite as necessary to the sacrament. Therefore, neither in extreme unction.

On the contrary, in all other anointings the matter is consecrated beforehand. Therefore, since this sacrament is a certain anointing, it requires consecrated matter.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is not necessary for the matter of this sacrament to be consecrated by a bishop. For the consecration of the matter in the sacrament of the Eucharist is nobler than in this sacrament. But a priest can consecrate the matter in the Eucharist. Therefore, also in this sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in physical operations, the nobler art never prepares the matter for a lower one, for it is nobler to use the matter than to prepare it, as is said in the Physics 2. (Aristotle, Physics, Bk. 2, ch. 2, 194b1–7.) But a bishop is above a priest. Therefore, he does not prepare the matter for a sacrament that a priest uses. But a priest administers this sacrament, as will be said. Therefore, the consecration of the matter does not pertain to a bishop.

On the contrary, in other anointings the matter is consecrated by a bishop. Therefore, he should do so in this one.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that the spiritual healing that is obtained in the end must be complete, for after it no other remains; as well as gentle, so that hope, which is most necessary to those departing, may not be shattered, but encouraged. Now olive is softening, and penetrates to the innermost parts, and is also easily spreadable; and therefore as to both of the qualities mentioned it is the appropriate matter for this sacrament. And because oil is chiefly named from the olive fluid, for other fluids take the name of oil from their likeness to it, this is also why olive oil should be taken as the matter of this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: The incorruption of glory is the reality not contained in this sacrament; nor is it necessary that the signification of such a reality correspond to the matter. Therefore, it is not necessary that balsam be included in the matter of this sacrament, for because of its fragrance balsam pertains to good reputation, which those who are departing do not need anymore in itself, but they need only clarity of conscience, which is signified by oil. (See Gregory IX, Decretals, Bk. 1, tit. 15, ch. 1, ‘Cum venisset.’)

Reply Obj. 2: Wine treats by eating away, oil by softening. And so healing with wine pertains more to penance than to this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 3: Although olive oil does not grow everywhere, nevertheless it can be easily transported to any place. And furthermore, this sacrament is not so very necessary that those departing could not obtain salvation without this sacrament.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that some people say that simple oil is the matter of this sacrament and in the very sanctification of the oil, which is done by a bishop, the sacrament is completed. But this is seen to be false by what was said about the Eucharist, where it was shown that only that sacrament consists in the consecration of the matter. And so it should be said that this sacrament consists in the anointing itself, as baptism consists in the washing; and the matter for this sacrament is sanctified oil. Now three reasons can be given why the sanctification of the matter is required in this sacrament and in certain others. The first is that all efficacy of the sacraments comes from Christ, and so those sacraments that he used have efficacy from his use of them, as he conferred regenerative power on water by the touch of his own flesh. But he did not use this sacrament, nor any physical anointing; and so the sanctification of the matter is required in all anointings. The second reason is on account of the fullness of grace, which is conferred not only so that it may take away guilt, but also the traces it leaves behind and the weakness of the body. The third is from the fact that its physical effect, namely, the healing of the body, is not caused by the natural property of the matter; and so this efficacy must be given to it by its sanctification.

Reply Obj. 1: The first sanctification is for the matter itself, but the second pertains to its use, according as it is actually conferring its effect. And therefore neither one is superfluous, for instruments also receive efficacy from the craftsman both while they are made and while they are applied to the act.

Reply Obj. 2: The efficacy that comes from the sacrament’s institution is applied to this matter through the sanctification.

The answer to the third objection is clear from what has been said.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that the minister of the sacrament does not bring about the sacrament’s effect by his own power like a principal agent, but by the efficacy of the sacrament that he administers; and this efficacy is first from Christ, and from him it descends in order to all others, namely, to the people by means of the ministers who administer the sacrament, and to the lower ministers by means of the higher ones who sanctify the matter. And therefore in all sacraments that require a sanctified matter, the matter’s sanctification is first done by the bishop, and sometimes the use is through the priest, so that priestly power may be shown to be derived from episcopal power, according to Psalm 133(132):2: it is like the precious oil on the head, which first runs down upon the beard, and then to the collar of the robe.

Reply Obj. 1: The sacrament of the Eucharist consists in the very sanctification of the matter, not in its use; and therefore, properly speaking, what is the matter of the sacrament is not what is consecrated. For this reason no previous sanctification done by the bishop upon the matter is required, but the sanctification of the altar is required, and other things like it, and even of the priest himself, which cannot be done by anyone but a bishop. Therefore in that sacrament also the priestly power is shown to be derived from the bishop, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 3 (PG 3:506).) And this why a priest can do that consecration of the matter that is in itself a sacrament, and not the consecration that is a kind of sacramental ordered to a sacrament that consists in its use by the faithful; for with regard to the true body of Christ no orders are above priestly orders, but as to the mystical body of Christ, episcopal orders are above priestly orders, as will be said in the following distinction.

Reply Obj. 2: The matter of the sacrament is not the kind of matter in which anything is done by the person who uses it, as in the mechanical arts, but something is done by its power. And so it partakes somewhat of the nature of an agent cause, inasmuch as it is a certain instrument of divine operation, as was said above in Distinction 1, Question 1, Article 4, Subquestion 1. And thus it is necessary that the matter acquire this power from a higher art or power, for in agent causes the more prior the agent is, the more perfect he is. But in purely material causes, the more prior the agent, the more imperfect it is.

Article 4

On the form of extreme unction

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the fourth question we proceed thus. It seems that this sacrament does not have any form. For since the efficacy of the sacraments is from their institution, and again from their form, it is necessary that the form be handed down by the one who instituted the sacrament. But this sacrament’s form is not found to be handed down by either Christ or the apostles. Therefore, the sacrament does not have any form.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, whatever is necessary to the sacrament is observed in the same way by all people. But nothing is more necessary to a sacrament that has a form than that form. Therefore, since no form is commonly observed by everyone in this sacrament, for they use different words, it seems that this sacrament does not have any form.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in baptism the form is only required for the sanctification of the matter, for the water is sanctified by the word of life washing away offenses, as was said above. But this sacrament has matter previously sanctified. Therefore, it does not require any form of words.

On the contrary (1), the Master said above, in Distinction 1, that every sacrament of the new law consists in things and words. Now words are the form of the sacrament. Therefore, since this is a sacrament of the new law, it seems that it has a form.

Furthermore (2), pertinent to this is the rite of the universal Church, which uses certain words in the conferral of this sacrament.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the form of this sacrament should be uttered by indicative speech, (Parallel: de Forma absol., ch. 1.) not as an entreaty. (The traditional formula is given below in SC 1.) For every sacrament of the new law has an effect that is certain. But the certainty of the effect is only expressed in the forms of sacraments by indicative speech, as is said, this is my body; or, I baptize you. Therefore, a prayer in the indicative should be the form of this sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the forms of the sacraments the intention of the minister should be expressed, which is required for the sacrament. But the intention of conferring the sacrament is only expressed by indicative speech. Therefore, etc.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in some churches in the conferral of this sacrament words like this are said: I anoint these eyes with sanctified oil in the name of the Father, etc., and this is like the form in other sacraments. Therefore, it seems that the form of this sacrament consists in this.

On the contrary (1), whatever is the form of the sacrament must be preserved by everyone. But the words mentioned are not said according to the custom of all churches, but only entreating words, namely, by this anointing and his own most tender mercy may the Lord pardon you whatever sins you have committed through sight, etc. Therefore, the form of this sacrament is an entreaty.

Furthermore (2), this is seen in the words of James, who attributed the effect of this sacrament to the prayer. He says, the prayer of faith will heal the sick (Jas 5:15). Therefore, since the efficacy of the sacrament is from the form, it seems that the form of this sacrament is the prayer mentioned.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the prayer mentioned is not an adequate form for this sacrament. For in the forms of other sacraments mention is made of the matter (as is seen in confirmation), which does not happen in the words mentioned. Therefore, it is not an appropriate form.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as the effect of this sacrament comes to us through divine mercy, so does the effect of the other sacraments. But in the form of the other sacraments no mention is made of divine mercy, but rather of the Trinity and the Passion. Therefore, the same should be done here.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, two effects of this sacrament are listed in the text. But in the words given only one effect is mentioned, namely, the remission of sins; but nothing of the physical healing, to which James directs the prayer of faith: the prayer of faith will heal the sick (Jas 5:15). Therefore, the form given is inadequate.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that some people have said that no form is necessary to this sacrament. But this seems to detract from this sacrament’s effect: for every sacrament effects by signifying, but the signification of matter is not determined to the specific effect, since it could relate to many things, except by the form of the words. And therefore in all sacraments of the new law which effect what they represent, there must be both a reality and words, as the Master said above in Distinction 1. And furthermore, James seems to base the entire power of this sacrament in the prayer, which is the form of this sacrament, as will be said. And so the opinion described seems presumptuous and erroneous. And because of this it should be said, as is commonly said, that it does have a specific form, just like all the other sacraments.

Reply Obj. 1: Sacred Scripture is proposed in common to all people; and so the form of baptism, which can be given to all people, must be expressed in Sacred Scripture. And likewise, the form of the Eucharist, which expresses the faith of that sacrament, which is necessary to salvation. But the forms of the other sacraments are not found handed on in scripture, but the Church has them from what was handed down from the apostles, who received them from the Lord, as the Apostle says, for I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you (1 Cor 11:23).

Reply Obj. 2: Those words that are essential to the form, namely, a prayer of entreaty, are said by all; but the other words that have to do with it being done well are not observed by all.

Reply Obj. 3: The matter of baptism has a certain sanctification in itself from its very contact with the flesh of the Savior. But from the form of the words it receives sanctification in the very act of sanctifying. And similarly, after the sanctification of the matter of this sacrament in itself, a sanctification is required in its use, by which it actually sanctifies.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the form of this sacrament is the prayer of entreaty, as is clear from James’s words (Jas 5:15), and from the use of the Roman Church, which only uses entreating words in the conferral of this sacrament. (On the form of this sacrament in the use of various churches, see Martene, de Antiquis eccles. ritibus, Bk. 1, ch. 7, a. 4 (1:301b).) And many reasons can be assigned for this. First, because the recipient of this sacrament is stripped of his own strength, which is why he needs prayers to be raised for him. Second, because it is given to those departing, who are already leaving the forum of the Church, and resting in the hand of God alone, which is also why they are committed to him by a prayer. Third, because this sacrament does not have any effect that always follows from the minister’s working once everything essential to the sacrament is duly performed, like the character in baptism and confirmation, and transubstantiation in the Eucharist, and the remission of sin in penance where contrition exists, which is essential to the sacrament of penance, but not to the essence of this sacrament. And so in this sacrament the form cannot be in the indicative mood as in the sacraments mentioned.

Reply Obj. 1: This sacrament, like the ones mentioned, contains certainty in itself, but it can be impeded by deception in the recipient (even if he intentionally subjects himself to the sacrament) from having any effect. And because of this it is not the same in this sacrament as in the other sacraments in which some effect is always obtained.

Reply Obj. 2: By the very act that is mentioned in the form, namely, by this holy anointing, the intention is sufficiently expressed.

Reply Obj. 3: Those words in the indicative mood, which are prefaced to the prayer according to the custom of some people, are not the form of this sacrament. But they are a kind of disposition to the form, inasmuch as the minister’s intention is determined to that act by those words.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that the prayer mentioned is an adequate form for this sacrament: for it refers to the sacrament in the fact that it says, by this anointing, and to what is working in the sacrament, namely, divine mercy, and to the effect, namely, the remission of sins.

Reply Obj. 1: This sacrament’s matter can be understood by the act of anointing: but the matter of confirmation cannot be by the act expressed in the form; and therefore it is not the same.

Reply Obj. 2: Mercy has to do with misery, for this sacrament is given in a state of misery, namely, illness. And so the mention of mercy is made here rather than in other sacraments.

Reply Obj. 3: The principal effect should be expressed in the form, and the one who always draws this effect from the sacrament, unless there is a defect on the part of the receiver. Now the physical healing is not such an effect, as is clear from what has been said, although sometimes it does result. And this is the reason James attributes this effect to the prayer, which is the form of this sacrament.

Question 2

Administering extreme unction

Next we ask about the administering of this sacrament, and concerning this, four questions arise:

first, who is the minister of this sacrament;

• second, on whom should it be conferred;
• third, on which parts;
• fourth, whether it should be repeated.
• Article 1

The minister of extreme unction

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first question we proceed thus. It seems that a lay person can also confer this sacrament. For this sacrament has its efficacy from the prayer, as James says (Jas 5:15). But the prayer of a lay person is sometimes equally acceptable to God as the prayer of a priest. Therefore, he can confer this sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, it is read of certain of the Egyptian fathers that they sent oil to the sick and they were healed. (In the life of one John, we find several such anecdotes. Rufinus of Aquileia, Vitae Patrum, Bk. 2, ch. 1: “For he [John] did not allow petitioners to come to him, but instead blessed oil for them to be anointed with, by which means they were healed of all their disorders.” Again: “The husband duly presented this appeal to him [John], whereupon he prayed, blessed oil, and sent him [the husband] back to her. After applying this oil to her eyes for three days she recovered her sight and gave thanks to God.” Again: “He went on from there to give us a lengthy discourse upon mystical teaching, and finally blessed some oil and gave it to him. The sick man anointed himself with it and vomited out a great deal of poison, after which, restored to good health, he walked back to the guesthouse.” For additional examples, see Vitae Patrum, Bk. 4, ch. 52 (PL 73:846); Bk. 8, ch. 13 (PL 73:1104) and ch. 43 (PL 73:1143); Jerome, Life of St. Hilarion, n. 44 (PL 23:54).) And likewise it is said of Blessed Genevieve that she anointed the sick with oil. (See Acta Sanctorum, Januuary 3, First Life of St. Genevieve, ch. 10 (BL 1:142b); Second Life, ch. 10 (BL 1:147a). Thomas does not refer to Genevieve anywhere else in his works.) Therefore, this sacrament can also be conferred by the laity.

On the contrary, the remission of sins happens in this sacrament. But lay people do not have the power for forgiving sins. Therefore, etc.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that deacons can confer this sacrament. (Parallel: below, d. 24, q. 2, a. 2, ad 1.) For according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 6 (PG 3:508).) deacons have purifying power. But this sacrament was instituted only for purifying from illness of mind and body. Therefore, deacons can confer it.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, baptism is nobler than this sacrament we are considering. But deacons can baptize, as is seen in the case of blessed Laurence. (See Jacobus de Voragine, Golden Legend, ch. 117, in which Laurence in prison baptizes the pagan Lucillus (Ryan ed., 2:65); Acta Sanctorum, August 10, Acta S. Laurentii, n. 3 (BL 36:518F); n. 7 (519C).) Therefore, they can also confer this sacrament.

On the contrary, it says in James 5:14: call for the priests of the Church.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that only the bishop can confer this sacrament. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 73.) For this sacrament is completed in anointing, just like confirmation. But only the bishop can confirm. Therefore, he alone can confer this sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, anyone who cannot do what is lesser cannot do what is greater. But the use of sanctified matter is greater than its sanctification, for that is its end. Therefore, since the priest cannot sanctify the matter, neither can he use the matter once sanctified.

On the contrary, the minister of this sacrament is to be called in for someone who receives this sacrament, as is clear from James 5:14. But a bishop could not visit all the sick of his diocese. Therefore, the bishop is not the only one who can confer this sacrament.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that according to Dionysius in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, pt. 1, n. 1 (PG 3:501).) there are some people who exercise hierarchical actions, and some people, namely the laity, only receive them. And therefore no sacrament’s administering belongs to a lay person by his office, but the fact that they can baptize in an emergency is done by a divine dispensation so that no one may lack the faculty of spiritual regeneration.

Reply Obj. 1: That prayer is not made by the priest in his own person, for since sometimes he is a sinner, he would not be heard, but it is made in the person of the whole Church, in whose person he can pray as a public person; but not a lay person, who is a private person.

Reply Obj. 2: Those anointings were not sacramental, but from a certain devotion of those receiving this anointing and the merits of those anointing them or sending the oil, the effect of physical healing was obtained through the grace of healings, not through sacramental grace.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the deacon has only purifying power, not illuminative power; therefore, since illumination is by grace, a deacon cannot give ex officio any sacrament in which grace is conferred. And therefore neither can he give this one, since grace is conferred in it.

Reply Obj. 1: This sacrament purifies by illuminating through the conferral of grace; and therefore its conferral does not belong to deacons.

Reply Obj. 2: This sacrament is not a sacrament of necessity, like baptism. Therefore, its dispensation is not committed in the same way to anyone in an emergency, but only to those to whom it belongs ex officio. Nor does it belong to deacons to baptize ex officio.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, pt. 1, n. 6 (PG 3:505).) the bishop properly holds the office of perfecting, just as the priest holds the office of illuminating. Therefore, it is reserved to bishops alone to dispense those sacraments that place the receiver in a certain state of perfection above others. Now this is not the case in this sacrament, since it is given to everyone. And therefore it can be administered by simple priests.

Reply Obj. 1: Confirmation imprints a character, by which a man is placed in a state of perfection, as was said above in Distinction 7, Question 2, Article 1, Subquestion 1. But this is not the case in this sacrament, and so it is not the same.

Reply Obj. 2: Although in the genus of final cause the use of sanctified matter is superior to the sanctification of the matter, nevertheless in the genus of efficient causes the sanctification of the matter is superior, for the use depends on it as its active cause. And therefore the sanctification requires a higher active power than the use.

Article 2

Who should receive extreme unction

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 73.) It seems that this sacrament should also be conferred on the healthy. For the healing of mind is a more principal effect of this sacrament than healing of body, as was said. But those who are healthy in body also need the healing of the mind. Therefore, this sacrament should be conferred on them.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament is for the departing, just as baptism is for those entering. But baptism is given to all who enter. Therefore, this sacrament should be given to all who depart. But sometimes those who are soon to depart are healthy, like those who are about to be decapitated. Therefore, this sacrament should be given to people like them.

On the contrary, it is said in James 5:15: are any among you sick? etc. Therefore, it only applies to the sick.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that in any illness this sacrament can be given. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 73.) For in James 5, where the sacrament is handed down, no illness is specified. Therefore, in every illness this sacrament should be conferred.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the nobler the remedy is, the more generally available it should be. But this sacrament is nobler than physical medicine. Therefore, since physical medicine is given to all the sick, it seems that this sacrament should be too.

On the contrary, this sacrament is called ‘last anointing’ by everyone. But not every illness leads to the end of life, for some illnesses are causes of longer life, as the Philosopher says. (Not precisely. Aristotle writes: “Perhaps in the case of certain maladies a diseased state of the body and shortness of life are interchangeable, while in the case of others ill-health is perfectly compatible with long life” (On Length and Shortness of Life, ch. 1, 465b27–31; Oxford ed.).) Therefore, this sacrament should not be given to all the sick.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that this sacrament should be given to the insane and the mentally disabled, because these kinds of afflictions are the most dangerous, and quickly lead to death. But in danger the remedy should be applied. Therefore, this sacrament, which is a remedy for human illness, should be conferred on such as these.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, baptism is a nobler sacrament than this one. But baptism is given to the insane, as was said above. Therefore, this sacrament should also be given to them.

On the contrary, this sacrament is not to be given to anyone but those who recognize it. But the insane and the mentally disabled do not. Therefore, it should not be given to them.

Quaestiuncula 4

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it should be given to children. For sometimes children and adults suffer the same ailments. But the same remedy should be applied to the same illness. Therefore, this sacrament should also be conferred on children, just as on adults.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament is given for purifying the traces left by sin, both actual and original, as was said above. But in children there are the traces left by original sin. Therefore, this sacrament should be given to them.

On the contrary, a sacrament should be given to no one that the form of the sacrament does not apply to. But the form of this sacrament does not apply to children, who have not sinned through sight and hearing, as is expressed in the form. Therefore, this sacrament should not be given to them.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that this sacrament is a kind of spiritual healing, as was said before, which indeed is signified by a certain mode of physical healing. And therefore on those to whom physical healing does not apply, namely, the healthy, the sacrament should not be conferred.

Reply Obj. 1: Although spiritual health is the principal effect of this sacrament, nevertheless, a spiritual healing must be signified by a physical healing, even if physical health does not result. And so spiritual health can only be given in this sacrament to those to whom physical treatment applies, namely, the sick; just as only someone who can partake in physical washing can receive baptism, but not a child still in his mother’s womb.

Reply Obj. 2: Baptism, too, is only for those entering who can be subject to physical cleansing; and so this sacrament of anointing is only for those departing to whom physical treatment applies.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that this sacrament is the final remedy that the Church can confer, as though immediately disposing someone to glory. And therefore it should be presented only to the sick who are in the state of departing, because their illness is such as to bring about death, and there is fear of danger.

Reply Obj. 1: Any ailment, if increased, can lead to death; and therefore if the kinds of maladies are considered, this sacrament can be given in any illness, for the apostle [James] does not specify a particular illness. But if the measure and stage of the illness are considered, this sacrament should not always be given to the sick.

Reply Obj. 2: Physical medicine has the health of the body as its principal effect, which all the sick need at some stage. But this sacrament has for its principal effect that safety that is necessary to those departing and making the journey to glory. And therefore it is not the same.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that for the effect of this sacrament to be received, the devotion of the recipient and the personal merit of the person conferring it and of the whole Church at large count for much; which is clear from the fact that the form of this sacrament is conferred in the manner of a prayer of entreaty. And therefore this sacrament should not be given to those who cannot recognize it and receive it with devotion, especially the insane or mentally disabled, who can show disrespect for the sacrament by a certain uncleanness, unless they have lucid intervals in which they could recognize the sacraments, and then the sacraments could be conferred on them in that state.

Reply Obj. 1: Although such people are sometimes in danger of death, nevertheless the remedy cannot be applied to them by their own devotion. And therefore it should not be conferred on them.

Reply Obj. 2: Baptism does not require a movement of the free will, for it is given principally against original sin, which is not cultivated in us by our free will. But in this sacrament a movement of free will is required, and so it is not the same. And furthermore, baptism is a sacrament of necessity, but extreme unction is not.

Response to Quaestiuncula 4

To the fourth question, it should be said that this sacrament requires active devotion in the recipient, just as the Eucharist does. Therefore, just as the Eucharist should not be given to children, so neither should this sacrament. (It would seem that St. Thomas has in mind small children before the age of reason, since a child capable of receiving the Eucharist would also be capable of the devotion required to receive extreme unction.)

Reply Obj. 1: Infirmities in children are not caused by actual sin, as in adults; and this sacrament is especially given against those infirmities that are caused by sin, like traces left behind by sin.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not given against the traces left by original sin, except as they are in some way reinforced by actual sins. Therefore, as is evident from its very form, it is given chiefly against actual sins, which do not occur in children.

Article 3

Which parts of the body should be anointed

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. It seems that the whole body should be anointed with this sacrament. For according to Augustine, the whole soul is in the whole body. (See Augustine, On the Immortality of the Soul, ch. 16 (PL 32:1034); On the Trinity, Bk. 6, ch. 6.) But this sacrament is particularly given for healing the soul. Therefore, the anointing should be done to the whole body.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the medicine should be applied where the sickness is. But sometimes the sickness affects the whole body, like fever. Therefore, the whole body should be anointed.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the whole body is immersed in baptism. Therefore, here too the whole should be anointed.

On the contrary, according to the universal rite of the Church, a sick person is anointed only on specific parts of the body. (This is no longer the universal rite, after the revision of the sacrament under Pope Paul VI. Nevertheless, those who continue to use the traditional sacrament of extreme unction still bless the five senses, hands, and feet.)

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that these parts are inappropriately determined, namely, that an ailing person be anointed on his eyes, ears, nostrils, lips, hands, and feet. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 73.) For a wise doctor treats a sickness in its root. But out of the heart come evil intentions . . . which defile men, as it says in Matthew 15:19–20. Therefore, the anointing must be done on the chest.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, purity of mind is not less necessary to those departing than to those entering. But those entering are anointed with chrism on the head by the priest to signify purity of mind. Therefore, also in this sacrament, those departing should be anointed on the head.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the remedy must be applied where the sickness has the most strength. But spiritual sickness particularly thrives in a man’s loins and a woman’s navel, as is seen from Job 40:16: his strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly, according to Gregory’s explanation. (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob (CCSL 143B), Bk. 32, par. 14.) Therefore, there should be an anointing there.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, just as someone sins by his feet, so also by the other parts of the body. Therefore, just as feet are anointed, so also other parts of the body should be anointed.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that those who are maimed are not to be anointed with the anointings that pertain to those parts. For just as this sacrament requires a specific disposition in the recipient, namely, that he be sick, so also it requires a specific part. But someone who does not have an illness cannot be anointed. Therefore, neither should someone be who does not have that part on which the anointing should be done.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, someone who is blind from birth does not offend through his sight. But in the anointing that is done on the eyes, mention is made of the crimes committed through sight. (“Through this holy anointing and through His tender mercy, may the Lord forgive thee whatever sins thou hast committed by the sense of sight. Amen.”) Therefore, this anointing should not be done on someone born blind; and the same with the other parts.

On the contrary, a defect of the body does not impede any other sacrament. Therefore, neither should it impede this one. But each of these anointings is necessary to this sacrament. Therefore, all of them should be done on someone maimed.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that this sacrament is presented in the manner of a medical treatment. Now it is not necessary that physical treatment be applied to the whole body, but only those parts where the root of the sickness is found. And so sacramental anointing should only be done on those parts in which the root of spiritual infirmity exists.

Reply Obj. 1: Although as to its essence the soul is complete in any part of the body, it is not as to its powers, which are the roots of acts of sin. And therefore it is necessary that the anointing be done on the particular parts in which those powers have their being.

Reply Obj. 2: Medicine is not always applied where the sickness is, but more aptly where the root of the sickness lies.

Reply Obj. 3: Baptism is done by the mode of washing. Now physical washing does not purify a stain from any part except the one where it is applied, and this is why baptism is done to the whole body. But it is different with extreme unction, for the reason already stated.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the principles of sinning in us are the same as the principles of acting: for sin consists in an act. Now three things are principles of acting in us. The first directs, namely, the cognitive power; the second commands, namely, the appetitive power; and the third executes, namely, the motive power. Now all our knowledge comes from the senses, and since where the first origin of sin exists in us, an ointment should be applied, for this reason the sites of the five senses are anointed, namely, eyes for vision, ears for hearing, nostrils for smelling, mouth for tasting, hands for touch, which particularly thrives in the tips of the fingers. But because of the appetitive power the loins are anointed by some people; (The anointing of the loins was definitively set aside by the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law. See Can. 947.2: “Unctio renum semper omittatur.”) because of the motive power the feet are anointed, which are more chiefly its instrument. And since the first principle is cognitive, this is why the anointing that is done to the five senses is observed by all as necessary to the sacrament. But some people do not keep the other anointings, certain ones observing the anointing of the feet but not the loins, for the appetitive and motive powers are secondary principles. (The Rituale Romanum states that the anointing of the feet may be omitted “ex qualibet rationabili causa,” which is repeated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Can. 947.3).)

Reply Obj. 1: Thoughts do not leave the heart except through some imagination, which is the movement made by the senses, as it says in On the Soul 2. (Rather, Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. 3, ch. 3, 428b10–16; 429a1–3.) And this is why the heart is not the first root of thinking, but the organs of the senses are, except to the extent that the heart is the principle of the whole body. (As is suggested by Aristotle’s remarks in his treatise On Youth, Old Age, Life and Death, and Respiration, ch. 3, 468b28–23, and by St. Thomas in his De Motu Cordis.) But this principle is a remote root.

Reply Obj. 2: Those entering should acquire purity, but those departing should cleanse it. And so those departing should be anointed in those parts where purity of the mind becomes defiled.

Reply Obj. 3: According to a certain custom it is done on the loins because it is there that the concupiscible appetite most flourishes. But the appetitive power is not the first root, as was said.

Reply Obj. 4: The organs of the body by which acts of sin are exercised are feet, hands, and tongue, where the anointing is indeed given, and the genitals, where no anointing should be applied because of the uncleanness of those parts and the decency of the sacrament.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that the maimed should be anointed as closely as possible to those parts where the anointing should have been done; for although they may not have the members, nevertheless their souls do have the powers that are due to those members, at least in root. And they can sin by what pertains to those parts inwardly, although not outwardly.

And by this the solutions to the objections are clear.

Article 4

Whether extreme unction should be repeated

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be repeated. (Parallel: SCG IV, ch. 73.) For the anointing that is done to a man is nobler than what is done to a stone. But the anointing of an altar is not repeated, unless the altar has been broken. Therefore, nor should extreme unction, which is done to a man, be repeated.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, after the end there is nothing. But this anointing is called ‘last.’ Therefore, it should not be repeated.

On the contrary, this sacrament is a certain spiritual treatment presented in the manner of a physical treatment. But physical treatment is repeated. Therefore, this sacrament too can be repeated.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it should not be repeated in the same illness. (Parallel: above, d. 18, q. 1, a. 3, qa. 2, ad 4.) For only one medicine is due for one illness. But this sacrament is a certain spiritual medicine. Therefore, it should not be repeated against one sickness.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to this someone sick can be anointed all day long, if anointing can be repeated for the same illness, which is absurd.

On the contrary, sometimes a sickness lasts a long time after the reception of a sacrament; and so the traces left by sin, against which this sacrament is chiefly given, are contracted again. Therefore, the anointing should be repeated.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer by saying that no sacramental or sacrament that has a perpetual effect should be repeated, for that would show the sacrament to have been ineffective at causing that effect; and thus injury would be done to that sacrament. Now a sacrament that does not have a perpetual effect can be repeated without injury, so that the effect that has passed away may be recovered. And since the body’s and mind’s health, which are the effects of this sacrament, can be lost after they have been brought about by the sacrament, therefore this sacrament can be repeated without injury to it.

Reply Obj. 1: The anointing of the stone is done for the altar’s consecration, which remains perpetually in the stone as long as the altar remains, and so it cannot be repeated. But this anointing is not done for a man’s consecration, since a character is not imprinted; and so it is not the same.

Reply Obj. 2: What is last according to man’s estimation is sometimes not the last according to the truth of the matter. And this is how this sacrament is called ‘last anointing,’ for it should not be repeated except for those whose death is close according to man’s estimation.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that this sacrament is not only about infirmity, but also the stage of infirmity: for it should only be given to the ill who seem to be close to death according to human estimation. Therefore, some ailments are not long-lasting, and so if this sacrament is given in these, then when a man arrives at that stage that he becomes in danger of death, he does not leave that stage unless the illness is cured, and then he should not be anointed again. But if he suffered a relapse, it would be another illness, and another anointing could be done. But there are certain lasting illnesses, like hectic fever and dropsy, and others like them, and in these anointing should not be done, unless they seem to be leading to a danger of death. And if a person survives this emergency while the same illness continues, and he is reduced to the same state again by that illness, he can be anointed again: for it is now like a different state of illness, although it is not another illness simply speaking.

And by this the solutions to the objections are clear.

Exposition of the Text

After the ones mentioned above, there is also another sacrament, namely, the anointing of the sick. (Sententiae IV, 23.1 (127). 1.) It seems that this is badly ordered, for since this sacrament is given to those departing, it should have been placed at the end. And it should be said that the other two that follow are ordered to the common good of the Church or of the human species. Now the good of one is prior to the good of the many, which arises from individual goods. Therefore, this sacrament should have been listed last among those that are ordered to the good of one person, and before those that are ordered to the good of the multitude.

An anointing which is done with chrism, which is called the principal anointing: (Sent. IV, 23.2 (128). 1.) for in it alone is a character impressed, and the fullness of the Holy Spirit is given for strength.

The heads of kings and bishops are anointed. (Sent. IV, 23.2 (128). 1.) Against this is the fact that according to the custom of the Church kings are not anointed with chrism on the head, but with oil on the shoulders. And it should be said that the anointing of kings is not a sacrament; and so it can be done in different ways according to different customs. Or it should be said that it can be explained as of kings and high priests, that is, of those who have the royal priesthood, so that both groups are taken for the same.

But if this sacrament is omitted because of contempt or negligence, this is dangerous and damnable. (Sent. IV, 23.3 (129). 3.) To the contrary: negligence in those things that are not necessary to salvation is not damnable. But this sacrament is not necessary to salvation. And it should be said that this is more to be taken as linking than separating, for not every kind of negligence is damnable, but only the one proceeding from contempt or leading to contempt.

But the body of Christ cannot be confected, except from consecrated bread: (Sent. IV, 23.4 (130). 5.) not that consecrated bread is the matter of the sacrament, but that the consecrated bread itself is the sacrament.