Chapter II. On the Matter of Extreme Unction

I say 1°. The remote matter of Extreme Unction is oil blessed by a Bishop; but it must be blessed, although not for validity, by the diocesan Bishop or, the see being vacant, by another neighboring Bishop, on the Lord's Supper, just as Chrism is, and it must be renewed each year. The first is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, ch. 1, where it is thus said: "The Church has understood the matter [of this sacrament] to be oil blessed by a Bishop; for unction most aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which the soul of the sick person is invisibly anointed." But the other is established both from the positive precept of Clement VII and from the perpetual practice of the Church and from the Roman Ritual, where it is said: Sacred oil is to be renewed each year on the Lord's Supper, the old having been burned.

I say 2°. The proximate matter is the unction of the sick person; outside the case of necessity the individual senses must be anointed; "but in a case of necessity a single unction suffices in one sense, or more rightly on the forehead, with the prescribed shorter form, with the obligation preserved of supplying the individual unctions when the danger ceases" (Can. 947, § 1). The reason of the first is drawn from Sacred Scripture: anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. St. James v, 14; from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, ch. 9, as in the preceding paragraph. The reason of the second is drawn from the Constitution Exsultate Deo of Eugene IV and from the Roman Ritual, tit. V, ch. 1: "But the five parts of the body chiefly must be anointed, which nature has given to man as the instruments of the senses, etc." The reason of the third is because then the man is truly anointed according to the Apostle and the sacrament is received.

By this canon the question concerning the sufficiency of one unction with the prescribed shorter formula has been decided. - Cf. Response of the S. C. of the Holy Office, 25 April 1906; 9 March 1917. For when the doubt had been proposed: "Whether, when the Sacrament of Extreme Unction has been administered in a case of necessity with one Unction employed on the forehead, through the words: Through this holy Unction may the Lord pardon you whatever you have committed. Amen, when the danger ceases, the individual Unctions, according to the tenor of the Decree of the day 31 January 1907, are to be supplied, to be employed under condition or not? Resp. Negatively to the first part: Affirmatively to the second. 9 March 1917."

The reason of the fourth is drawn from the response just brought forward and from the present canon 947, § 1; whence it is established that in every conferral of Extreme Unction there is an obligation of performing the individual unctions: all without the shorter method in ordinary cases, as is established from the second; all in extraordinary cases after the shorter method has been employed and the danger removed. Therefore the individual unctions must be supplied; now then, these Unctions are the very proximate matter of the sacrament ordinarily employed; they are truly sacramental actions; they are not something sacramental, for not even a word is had in the response of the Holy Office about the use of a sacramental, nor about a changed nature of the action which is the very matter of the sacrament. Therefore this supplying of the individual unctions, once the danger is removed, is a truly sacramental action more expressly signifying the grace of the sacrament; and this supplying is to be held either as a simple continuation, completion of the prior unction with which it forms one moral thing, which is according to the nature of this sacrament; or it is to be held as a new sacrament. Nor does it matter that the sacrament of Extreme Unction cannot be repeated in the same danger, for the law concerning not repeating Extreme Unction comprehends the ordinary case, but not, as it seems, the case in which, on account of urgent danger, the individual unctions could not be given. Thus, saving better judgment.

Question 1. Whether the unction of the five senses is of the necessity of the sacrament?

Resp. Negatively, as is clear from Can. 947, § 1. Although this is true, outside the case of instant death such unction is necessary by necessity of precept, and indeed grave necessity; truly the Church names seven unctions. The Roman Ritual, according to the prescriptions of the Council of Florence, orders that the unctions be made on the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, and feet.

Question 2. Whether the unction on the feet and loins is also, practically speaking, necessarily to be made?

Resp. § 2. The unction of the loins is always to be omitted.

§ 3. The unction of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause (Can. 947).

Question 3. Where and how must the other unctions be made?

Resp. § 1. The unctions are to be accurately performed with the words, order, and manner prescribed in the ritual books ...

§ 4. Outside the case of grave necessity, the unctions are to be made by the very hand of the minister and with no instrument employed (Can. 947).

They must be made: 1°. on the eyes or on the eyelids, the eyes being closed; 2°. on the ears, namely on the lower part and not inwardly; 3°. on the nostrils; 4°. on the mouth, the lips being pressed together, or, if this cannot be done because of the necessity of breathing, on the lower lip; 5°. on the hands, above for priests, below for laymen. - But these unctions must be made in the manner of a cross with the right thumb of the priest, who must pronounce the form at the same time. - Note nevertheless: 1°. that a doubled unction in paired organs is not required by necessity of the sacrament, because in one part the whole sense is had; 2°. that the aforesaid order among the different senses is not essential but only rubrical; but a fortiori it is not essential to begin from the right organ rather than from the left; 3°. that in a case of necessity, for example, in time of plague, the different unctions can be made by means of a brush, because in this sacrament no imposition of hands is required as in Confirmation, although, with physicians testifying, no danger is incurred if they are made with the finger; 4°. that one single drop of oil of itself suffices for making all the unctions, because oil is easily diffused; but in practice the extreme part of the thumb must be dipped before the individual unctions; 5°. that those who are deprived of some sense are to be anointed either on the organ itself, if it is present, or on the nearer part, because thus the practice of the Church bears and it is established by the Roman Ritual. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 710. - O'Kane, nn. 894 and 928 and following. - Cappellman, Pastoral Medicine, p. 165.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1142, n. 109.

Question 4. Whether the precept of renewing the oil obliges under grave obligation?

Resp. Affirmatively, as it seems, because the matter appears sufficiently grave; but if new blessed oil cannot be had, it is lawful to use the old. Note besides that if within the year the blessed oil is going to fail, and no other can be had, another oil not blessed can be poured into the remaining oil, yet in lesser quantity. And this can be done rather often if necessity so requires on account of the abundance of the sick, although little by little a quantity is added far greater even than that which was consecrated by the Bishop at the beginning, provided nevertheless that in each mixture it is less than the other part into which it is poured. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 708.

Question 5. Whether oil from olives is required by necessity of the sacrament?

Resp. Affirmatively, both because properly under the name of oil, by ecclesiastical use and sense, only oil of olives is understood, and because thus it is expressly had in the Decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians, where it is read: "The matter of which [Extreme Unction] is oil of olive." It is clear also from the whole tradition and the unanimous consent of Doctors. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 708.

Question 6. Whether this oil must necessarily have been blessed by a Bishop?

Resp. The oil of olives to be employed in the sacrament of extreme unction must have been blessed for this by a Bishop, or by a presbyter who has obtained the faculty of blessing it from the Apostolic See (Can. 945).

But if you ask whether it must be blessed in order to Extreme Unction, it is answered that there is not one opinion of theologians, and that the one which denies seems probable; because in the cited Declarations and other documents it is said only that episcopal blessing is required. But in practice the safer view must altogether be held, except in a case of necessity, in which this sacrament is to be administered under condition with another blessed oil, and afterward, if oil of the sick can be had, it is to be repeated. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 709. - De Augustinis, Thesis 2, p. 369. - O'Kane, nn. 852 and following.

I said with another blessed oil; for a threefold holy oil is distinguished, which in the same ceremony on Thursday in the Lord's Supper is blessed by the Bishop, namely the oil of the sick, the oil of catechumens, and holy Chrism. The oil of the sick serves only for anointing the sick in danger of death and for the consecration of bells for the external unction; for Chrism is employed for the internal. The oil of catechumens is deputed for catechumens to be anointed on the breast and between the shoulders before Baptism, for consecrating the hands of new priests, and also for some other consecrations, for example, for the consecration of kings, etc. But Chrism, or oil mixed with balsam and blessed by the Bishop, is employed in the sacrament of Confirmation, in the ceremonies of Baptism after the ablution has been made, and for various consecrations, for example, of chalice, paten, altar, bell inwardly, etc. - Cf. the Roman Pontifical, where it treats of the ceremonies of Thursday in the Lord's Supper.

Question 7. Whether in a case of necessity it is lawful to employ oil blessed not by a Bishop but by a priest not having delegation of the Pope?

Resp. Negatively, as is established from the response of the Holy Office, 15 May 1899. "Oil blessed by a presbyter is matter altogether inept for confecting the Sacrament of Extreme Unction: and not even in extreme necessity can it be validly employed."