Twenty Third Distinction

Single Question. Whether Extreme Unction is a Sacrament of the New Law

1. “Besides what has been said before” [Lombard, Sent. IV d.23 ch.1 n.1].

2. Twenty third distinction. About this distinction I ask this question, which includes the whole matter of the distinction: whether extreme unction is a sacrament of the New Law.

3. That it is not:

All sacraments of the New Law are instituted by Christ, as was proved in Ord. IV d.1 nn.18-25. But this one seems to have been instituted by St. James in his canonical letter 5.14-15, “Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the priests and they will pray over him etc.”

4. Again, one sacrament has one matter and one form; but this sacrament, according as it is ministered by the Church, has many matters, because many anointings, and many forms, because many prayers conjoined to the anointings.

5. To the opposite is the Master in the text [Lombard, Sent. IV d.23 ch.3 n.1].

I. To the Question

6. Here there are two things to look at: first whether it is possible for there to be a sacrament of the New Law that is an efficacious sign of final remission of venial sins, and that it is fitting, and that it has been done; second, that extreme unction is such a sacrament and about the total idea of extreme unction.

A. About the Possibility, Fittingness, and Reality of this Sacrament

7. First as follows: it is possible for God to remit venial sins finally; therefore it is possible for him to institute an efficacious sign of this remission. The consequence is plain, because it is possible for man to institute a practical efficacious sign of any work of his; therefore much more forcefully is this possible for God; and thus is he able to institute any sensible sign whatever, whose institution does not include a contradiction, as a practical efficacious sign of this effect.

8. This is also fitting, namely that someone about to depart this life be finally absolved of venial sins, because when not remitted they would be an impediment to attaining glory, and they could fail to be remitted up to the point of departure, because a sinner is as it were continually sinning with such sins.

9. That this was also done is proved by the words of James 5.15, “If he is in sin, they will be remitted him.” He does not mean it about mortal sins because these are only remitted in baptism or penitence; therefore about venial sins.

10. Let the first conclusion be, therefore that, with respect to final remission of venial sins, it is fitting to be and it can be and it is a sacrament of the New Law.

B. About Extreme Unction and its Total Idea

11. About the second main conclusion [n.6], one must say that the sacrament is called ‘extreme unction’.

12. Of which the following idea [or account] can be assigned: ‘Extreme unction is the anointing of an ill, penitent man, on determinate parts of the body, with oil consecrated by a bishop, ministered by a priest who speaks at the same time certain words with due intention, efficaciously signifying by divine institution the final curing of venial sins’.

13. This idea appears good because it is not in itself false, from Metaphysics 5.29.1024b29-30, for no part of it is repugnant to another.

14. In explanation of the parts, then, first is set down what unction is, whose fittingness is that this sensible sign is congruent with the effect, namely interior anointing in the curing of man.

15. There is added ‘of an ill man’. Therefore, it should not be conferred on a healthy man, nor on someone exposed in just any way to danger of death, because not on him who is threatened by death from danger of extrinsic violence (as of weapons, of drowning, and the like), nor on him who is ill in any way whatever but dangerously ill, so that exit from the state of wayfarer to the final destination probably threatens him.

16 As to the words ‘of a penitent man’ which is added, the thing is plain, because no one is worthily capable of this sacrament unless he is in grace. For this sacrament is not a remedy to acquire grace, because only baptism and penitence are sacraments for that purpose. And by this are excluded those who do not have the use of reason, as children, and who do not have matter for penitence, at any rate who do not have penitence about venial sins (as the perfectly innocent). Also, because those who do not have the use of reason cannot be penitent, the mad are excluded and the demented - and this unless they, by an express preceding will, be presumed to want it.

17. As to the addition of ‘on determinate parts’, these parts are the organs of the powers by whose acts venial sin is frequently committed, as the organs of the five senses and the powers of motion. And this is sometimes in respect of the same sense and generative power, as the organs of the seeing power (two eyes), the organs of the hearing power (two ears), the organs of the smelling power (nostrils), the organs of the touching power (hands). And in the aforesaid, as the organs are double, so are the anointings double. The organ of taste is the tongue, on which an anointing is not done (for avoiding abomination), but exteriorly on the mouth. For the organ of the generative power, unction is done at the loins, according to the remark of Gregory [Homilies on the Gospels, 1 hom.13 n.1] on Luke 12.35, “Let your loins be girded about etc.,” who says, “For men [the vice of] luxury is in the loins.” Because of the organ of progressive motion, which is the chief motive power, there is a double unction on the two feet as the organs ordained for that motion. The other motion by which sin is frequently done is the motion of the tongue, according to James 3.2-4, 15, “He who does not offend in word is a perfect man,” and many other things he says there about the tongue. And against this is the anointing of the mouth so that it is a remedy against a double venial sin, just as the tongue cooperates in two works of nature (On the Soul 2.8.420b16-18), namely taste and speech. There are therefore eleven partial anointings; but those that are double are as it were single anointings, so that there are seven main anointings, namely on the five organs of sense, the sixth on the main organ of the power of progressive motion, the seventh on the main organ of the generative power.

18. There follows [in the definition] ‘with oil’. And it is not necessary that there is anything made of oil and balsam there, as there is in the matter of confirmation. Because confirmation is for the confirmation of the faith, and so in the one confirmed is required not only purity of conscience, signified by oil, but the odor of a good name, signified by balsam; but for him who is having to exit from the way of pilgrimage to the finish point, a pure conscience is enough. Now episcopal consecration is necessary so that the matter be suitable, because commonly in sacraments consisting in use only baptism does not require a specially consecrated matter, because Christ, by the touch of his most pure flesh (when he wanted to be baptized by John), consecrated all water, that is, dedicated it for this use [Ord. IV d.7 n.20].

19. As to what follows, ‘ministered by a priest’, it expresses the appropriate minister - not only who may licitly do it but who alone ministers this sacrament. Because if another attempt it he does nothing - just as if a non-priest were to attempt to confect [the Eucharist], he would do nothing. And the determination of this minister is got from James 5.14, “Let him bring in the priests.”

20. As to what follows, “who speaks at the same time certain words with due intention,” it belongs to the form of this sacrament and its simultaneity with the matter and the intention of the minister. The simultaneity and intention were sufficiently explained above, in the material on baptism [Ord. IV d.6 nn.102-132]. And this sixfold form for the seven main unctions is: “Through this holy anointing and the Lord’s most pious mercy, may he spare you whatever delinquency you have done by vice of the nostrils, the tongue, the touch, or the like.”

21. The idea set down is complete, because it contains the receptive subject, because it contains the ill penitent man, and this on the determinate parts before expressed; and the remote matter, namely the oil consecrated by the bishop, or the immediate anointing itself done with the oil; and this as to the principal seven organs and, counting the partial ones, eleven. Also, it contains the form, because it contains certain words, that is the seven prayers spoken by the priest with the seven main anointings. It contains the minster too, because it contains the priest.

22. And these points are collected from James 5.14 (as has been said) and Mark 6.13

II. To the Initial Arguments

23. To the arguments.

To the first [n.3] I say that this sacrament was instituted by Christ, as was plain above in the aforesaid distinction and question [n.3, with reference]. And James was only the promulgator or herald of this sacrament instituted by Christ.

24. To the second [n.4] I say that this sacrament is one by unity of integrity but not one by unity of indivisibility, just as neither is its effect indivisibly one (because it is not remission of one venial sin) but one by unity of plenary remission of all venial sins, so that, with them all remitted, nothing remains holding him back from reception of beatitude.