Extreme Unction: its institution, matter and form

THE Council of Trent defined that Extreme Unction is a true sacrament of the New Law insinuated by St Mark and promulgated and recommended to the faithful by St James when he wrote: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.”¹

This sacrament, as the Council of Trent also teaches, is the complement or completion of Penance. As we have seen, Penance was specially instituted for the remission of postbaptismal sin, and its reception is necessary for all Christians who have fallen into grave sin after Baptism. Penance, then, ordinarily precedes Extreme Unction, which is properly a sacrament of the living; its primary effect is to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul for the salvation of the sick man. If any sins still remain on the soul, provided that there be at least attrition for them, they will be remitted together with the remains of sin. By the remains of sin are understood the temporal punishment due to them, spiritual weakness and inclination to evil, lethargy in the doing of good. The sacrament removes these wholly or in part, according to the dispositions of the recipient, and, moreover, if it be for the good of the sick person and in keeping with the providence of God, it restores him to bodily health. This last effect is not produced by miracle, but by means of natural causes; the sacrament consoles and soothes the sick person, dispels his mental anxieties, and the resultant state, with the blessing of God, sometimes brings about a recovery. In order to produce this effect with more certainty the administration of the sacrament should not be too long deferred.

¹ Jas. v 14, 15.

The remote matter of Extreme Unction is olive oil blessed by a bishop for the purpose, or by a priest who has received power to bless it from the Holy See (Can. 945). Ecclesiastical law requires that priests obtain the oil of the sick from their own ordinary, not from any other Bishop.

The proximate matter is the anointing with oil of the principal organs of the senses, and where the organs are double both are anointed, the right one first. In England, according to the Ritual, the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, and feet, are anointed; but when the recipient is a woman in a public infirmary or hospital, the priest has special leave to omit the anointing of the feet if he thinks that it would excite scandal or comment. According to Canon 947, sec. 3, the anointing of the feet may be omitted for any reasonable cause.

If some sense-organ is wanting, the part of the body nearest to where it should be is anointed. Each anointing has its own special form, that for the eyes being: “ By this holy anointing and through his most sweet mercy may the Lord forgive whatever sins thou hast committed through thy sight. Amen.” The form for the other senses is similar. If the near approach of death will not allow of all the senses being anointed with their appropriate forms, the forehead may be anointed with the following general form: “ By this holy anointing may the Lord forgive whatever sins thou hast committed. Amen.”¹ As, however, Extreme Unction is only probably valid when administered with such a single anointing under one general form, if there is time it should be repeated immediately in the form prescribed by the Ritual.

¹ S.O., April 25, 1906; can. 947, sec. I.

I. Extreme Unction is a true sacrament; this proposition is of faith from the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord, and promulgated by blessed James the Apostle; ... let him be anathema."¹

Note. It is disputed at what time Extreme Unction was instituted. Some have thought that the anointing performed by the Apostles, of which Mark speaks,² was Extreme Unction. But this opinion must be rejected, because the minister of that sacrament is a priest; the Apostles, however, were constituted priests afterwards, namely at the Lord's Supper. Most hold that this sacrament, which is the complement of Penance, was instituted after Christ's resurrection together with Penance.

¹ Session 14, canon 1.

² "And they anointed with oil many sick persons and healed them" (Mark 6:13).

II. Extreme Unction, even in the case in which several anointings and prayers are used, is only one sacrament; otherwise the dogma concerning the sevenfold number of the sacraments would not stand. This, however, is explained in different ways by different authors. According to some, the diverse anointings and prayers taken together signify and produce one complete effect; but the effect is produced either by parts, as Scotus teaches,¹ or after the last anointing has been performed, as St. Thomas holds (Supplement, q. 30, a. 1, ad 3; cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 707, qu. 2). According to others, the first anointing together with the partial form signifies and effects the entire effect, while the other anointings are regarded only as sacramentals (n. 570).

¹ According to Mastrius, Scotus supposes that the individual actions have their own partial effects. For Scotus says, In IV Sent., dist. 23, at the end, ad 2, that this sacrament is indeed one by unity of integrity, but not by unity of indivisibility, just as its effect is not one indivisibly, because it is not the remission of one venial sin, but one by the unity of the full remission of all venial sins (Gaude, in St. Alphonsus, VI, 707).

I. The ordinary form in the Latin Church is the prayer prescribed by the Roman Ritual for the individual anointings, namely: "Through this holy Unction, and His most tender mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed through sight, or through hearing, etc. Amen."¹ That the words "and His most tender mercy" are not required for validity is gathered from the form to be used in a case of necessity, in which the aforesaid words are omitted. Nevertheless, outside a case of true necessity, the omission is held to be gravely illicit (St. Alphonsus, VI, 711, dub. 2).

Among the Orientals this or a similar form is used: "Holy Father, physician of souls and bodies, who sent Your only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, healing every disease and freeing us from death, heal also Your servant N. from the bodily infirmity detaining him, and give him life through the grace of Your Christ, by the intercessions of N. N. and of all the Saints. Amen."

¹ Title V, cap. 1, n. 20. From the new editions of the Roman Ritual, the word "Amen" is to be said by the priest.

II. "In a case of necessity a single anointing in one sense, or more rightly on the forehead, suffices with this shorter form: 'Through this holy Unction may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed. Amen.'" Thus the Roman Ritual,¹ canon 947, § 1, and the Decree of the Holy Office.² As it is useful to note in passing, everyone is under obligation to hold the aforesaid shorter form by memory.

Note. As is gathered from the words of St. James,³ it is required for the essence of the form that it be deprecatory formally, or according to sense (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 29, a. 8; St. Alphonsus, VI, 711, dub. 1). But nothing seems to prevent a form that is grammatically indicative from being formally deprecatory, namely from the intention of praying to God, an intention, I say, sufficiently manifested by the very nature of the action.

¹ Loc. cit., n. 21.

² April 24, 1906.

³ James 5:14 sq.

III. With respect to the union of matter and form, it is sufficient to have noted: For validity, the union which we described in the treatise on the Sacraments in general suffices (n. 22). With respect to liceity, these words of the Roman Ritual are to be observed: "While the priest anoints the eyes, ears, and other members of the body which are paired, let him take care that, in anointing one of them, he does not complete the form of the Sacrament before he has anointed both members of this kind."¹

¹ Title V, cap. 1, n. 18.

"Whether the Sacrament of Extreme Unction can be validly ministered with oil not consecrated by Episcopal blessing? Resp. Negatively. The S. C. I. condemned the contrary doctrine as rash and proximate to error." 13 Jan. 1655; 14 Sept. 1842.

What is extreme unction? - Extreme Unction is so called because, of all the sacred unctions which the Lord our Savior entrusted to his Church, it is the last to be administered. Roman Catechism 3. Extreme unction is a sacrament of the New Law, instituted by Christ the Lord and promulgated by Blessed James the Apostle, by which, through anointing with oil and the prayer of the priest, there is conferred upon sick adults in danger of life the salvation of the soul, and sometimes also health of the body. James 5:14, 15; Trent, sess. 7, c. 1; sess. 14, de E. U., C. 1, c. 1, 2; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; L. 706; Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 48; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 1, 3; 4, d. 23, q. 1, a. 1; E. M.

What are the effects of extreme unction? - To confer grace. - To remit venial sins, and also mortal sins if they are present and there is at least attrition for them, if one can neither be contrite nor confess. This sacrament is the complement of penance, for it was chiefly instituted to wipe away the remnants of sins. "But because, when sin is found in the soul, the remnants cannot be taken away unless the sin is first taken away, therefore consequently this sacrament takes away sin." L. 731. Hence it is primarily a sacrament of the living, secondarily of the dead. Therefore Confession or contrition ought, of itself, to precede if the sick person is in mortal sin. - To wipe away the remnants of sin and to relieve and strengthen the soul of the sick person. - The remnants of sin are not only the punishments due to sins, but also anxiety and fear of soul, weakness and torpor toward good.

Therefore the effect of this sacrament is the strengthening of the sick person against the temptations of the devil, the relief and raising of the soul by hope in the divine goodness and mercy. - Sometimes to restore health of body, where this is expedient for the salvation of the soul, by aiding natural causes. Therefore they err who do not receive this sacrament except when the sickness has prevailed so much that they cannot be healed without a miracle. - James, l.c.; Trent, sess. 14, de E. U., C. 2, c. 2; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Catechism, n. 5-7, 9, 12, 14-16; L. 714, 716, 731; Billuart, art. 7; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 1 ad 2, ad 3, a. 2; q. 30; q. 32.

Does extreme unction confer grace in the individual anointings, or only when all are completed? - It is disputed, and each opinion is probable to St. Alphonsus. The reason is that each anointing is completed by its own matter and form; but from all of them one anointing at last coalesces. L. 707, H. A., tr. 17, n. 3. But St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 30, a. 1 ad 3, says: "grace is conferred in the last anointing." - Yet "it is certain that this sacrament is one; for although the anointings are several, nevertheless all pertain to one signification of interior healing." L. 706. - St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 3; Roman Catechism, n. 4.

What is the matter of extreme unction? - The remote matter of this sacrament is necessarily olive oil, which must be blessed by a Bishop not only for liceity but also for validity, even when extreme necessity presses. Trent, sess. 14, C. 1; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; S. I. C., Jan. 13, 1665; Sept. 14, 1842; Jan. 10, 1850; May 15, 1878. By a Bishop, namely by the diocesan, or, when the See is vacant, by another neighboring Bishop; on Holy Thursday the oil of the sick, just like the oil of catechumens and chrism, must be renewed each year, though not for the validity of the sacrament, from the precept of Clement VIII and from the Roman Ritual, de Extr. Unct. And this more probably is grave. Nevertheless, if new oil cannot be had, it is licit to use the old. L. 708. It was granted to Latin America by Leo XIII, Constitution Trans oceanum, "that sacred oils even old ones can be used, yet not beyond four years, provided they are not corrupted, and after all diligence has been carried out new or more recent sacred oils cannot be had." But if perhaps within the year the blessed oil seems to be failing, and no other blessed oil can be had, it can be repaired by pouring in a small amount of unblessed oil in lesser quantity. Roman Ritual. And this several times, although in the end the added quantity has been greater than that which was blessed by the Bishop and which was there from the beginning. Blessed; whether it must be blessed in order to extreme unction is disputed. Some probably deny, because the Church requires nothing else except that it be blessed by a Bishop. Others probably affirm, because by a special blessing it must be deputed to the sacrament of extreme unction. Yet in practice the safer opinion is to be held, except in a case of necessity, in which, after another oil of catechumens or chrism has been used, which is used in the sacrament of confirmation and in the ceremonies of baptism, if afterward the oil of the sick can be had, the sacrament is to be repeated. Blessed. A simple priest by concession of the Supreme Pontiff can bless oil of this kind, as is clear from the use of the Greek Church. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 1, n. 4.

The oil is to be preserved in a clean and decently adorned place, in a silver or tin vessel, Roman Ritual, de Sacr. extr. unct., namely in the church or sacristy, or even at home, if the pastor's house is very distant from the church. S. R. C., Dec. 16, 1826, n. 2650.

The proximate matter is the anointing of five principal parts of the body, namely the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, or, if someone lacks one of them, the part nearest to it, although he has lacked it from birth. But whether all these anointings are necessary by necessity of the sacrament, or whether one alone suffices, with a universal form comprehending all the senses, is disputed, and each opinion is probable; and in practice, outside the case of necessity, one must stand by the opinion affirming the necessity of all. Yet the resolution of the Holy Office about one form, although in a case of necessity, seems to favor one anointing. Cf. 869. Nor indeed is the order among the various anointings of parts necessary for the sacrament; nor, in paired senses, is the anointing of each necessary, but only by precept is it to be observed outside a case of necessity. Besides, unless the usage of the place provides otherwise, the feet and loins are to be anointed, but the loins only of men, provided they can conveniently be moved. In some places the anointing of the loins is omitted in male religious. Where however it is not in use, let it be introduced, if this can be done. S. R. C., Aug. 14, 1858. And it can never be omitted unless in particular cases, with precautions applied, decency cannot otherwise be sufficiently provided for. Holy Office, May 15, 1878. The Greeks anoint the forehead, chin, both cheeks, breast, hands, and feet. - Trent, sess. 14, C. 1, c. 3; Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Ritual, de Sacr. Extr. Unct.; Roman Catechism, n. 5, 10; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 1, n. 4, c. 3; L. 707, 710, 732; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 4, 6; q. 32, a. 5-7; E. M.

What is the form of extreme unction? - The form is: "Through this holy anointing, and his most loving mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have committed through sight, or hearing, etc. Amen." Roman Ritual, de Sacr. Extr. Unct.; Florence, Decree for the Armenians. Certainly essential are: Through this anointing, by which the sacramental action is signified; May the Lord forgive you, by which the sacramental effect is expressed generally; more truly also, when it is conferred in the ordinary way, outside a case of necessity, cf. 869, Whatever through sight, etc., you have committed, by which the special effect of this sacrament is contained; and in a case of true necessity, when one anointing and one form have been used, whatever you have committed.

On the contrary, more truly the following are not essential: Through his mercy; for they are tacitly comprehended in the words, May God forgive you; nor certainly are these essential: Holy, Most loving, Amen, which signify neither the sacramental action nor the sacramental effect. To omit essentials is grave; accidentals light or grave according as the omission is light or notable.

Therefore it is grave to omit through his mercy; but light to omit holy, or most loving, or amen. The form of Extreme Unction is essentially deprecatory. Roman Ritual, l.c. Therefore, if it is pronounced in the indicative or imperative mode, according to the more common opinion, it is invalid. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent, sess. 14, de E. U., C. 1; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 2; L. 710, 711; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 7, 8, 9. "Although some change certain words, when for May God forgive you they put May he remit or May he spare; sometimes also, May he heal whatever you have committed; nevertheless, because no change of meaning is made, it is clear that the same form is religiously observed by all." Roman Catechism, n. 6. Cf. here 869.

“Doctrine on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.—It has seemed good to the holy Synod to add to the preceding doctrine on Penance the following matters concerning the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, which was regarded by the Fathers as the consummation not only of Penance but also of the whole Christian life, which ought to be a perpetual penance. First, therefore, concerning its institution, it declares and teaches that our most merciful Redeemer, who willed that provision be made at all times for His servants with salutary remedies against all the weapons of all their enemies, just as He prepared the greatest aids in the other sacraments, by which Christians might preserve themselves unharmed from every graver evil of the spirit while they lived, so also fortified the end of life by the Sacrament of Extreme Unction as by a most firm safeguard. For although our adversary seeks and seizes occasions throughout our whole life in order that he may devour our souls in any way possible, there is nevertheless no time when he exerts more vehemently all the powers of his cunning to destroy us utterly, and, if he can, to cast us down even from confidence in divine mercy, than when he perceives the end of life to be impending over us.

“Chapter 1. On the Institution of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.—This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted as a true and proper Sacrament of the New Testament by Christ our Lord; it was indeed intimated in Mark, but was commended and promulgated to the faithful by James the Apostle and brother of the Lord: ‘Is anyone among you sick?’ he says. ‘Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ In these words, as the Church learned from Apostolic tradition received from hand to hand, he teaches the matter, form, proper minister, and effect of this salutary sacrament. For the Church understood that the matter is oil blessed by the bishop, since the anointing most aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit by which the soul of the sick person is invisibly anointed; and then that the form is those words: ‘Through this anointing,’ etc.

“Chapter 2. On the Effect of This Sacrament.—The reality and effect of this sacrament is explained in these words: ‘And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ For this reality is the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose anointing wipes away offenses, if any still remain to be expiated, and the remnants of sin; and it relieves and strengthens the soul of the sick person, exciting in him a great confidence in divine mercy, by which the sick person, being assisted, both bears the inconveniences and sufferings of illness more lightly and resists more easily the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel; and sometimes obtains bodily health, when this will be expedient for the salvation of his soul.

“Chapter 3. On the Minister of This Sacrament and the Time at Which It Ought to Be Given.—Now, as regards the prescription concerning those who ought both to receive and to administer this sacrament, this too was handed down not obscurely “in the aforesaid words. For there it is also shown that the proper ministers of this sacrament are the priests of the Church; by that name in this passage are to be understood not those older in age or the leading persons among the people, but either bishops or priests rightly ordained by them through the imposition of the hands of the presbyterate. It is also declared that this anointing is to be applied to the sick, but especially to those who lie in such danger that they seem to be placed at the end of life; whence it is also called the sacrament of those departing. But if the sick should recover after receiving this anointing, they can again be assisted by the aid of this sacrament when they fall into another similar danger of life. Therefore, those are in no way to be heard who, contrary to so open and clear a statement of the Apostle James, teach that this anointing is either a human invention or a rite received from the Fathers, having neither a command of God nor a promise of grace; and those who assert that it has now ceased, as though it were to be referred only to the grace of healings in the primitive Church; and those who say that the rite and usage which the holy Roman Church observes in the administration of this sacrament is repugnant to the statement of the Apostle James and is therefore to be changed into another; and finally, those who affirm that this Extreme Unction can be contemned by the faithful without sin. For all these things most manifestly conflict with the clear words of so great an Apostle. Nor indeed does the Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all the others, observe anything in administering this anointing, as regards those things which constitute the substance of this sacrament, other than what blessed James prescribed. Nor indeed could contempt for so great a sacrament exist without an enormous crime and an injury to the Holy Spirit Himself.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James the Apostle, but is only a rite received from the Fathers or a human invention: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that the sacred anointing of the sick neither confers grace, nor remits sins, nor relieves the sick, but has now ceased, as though in former times it were only the grace of healings: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that the rite and usage of Extreme Unction which the holy Roman Church observes is repugnant to the statement of blessed James the Apostle and is therefore to be changed, and can be contemned by Christians without sin: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that the priests of the Church whom blessed James exhorts to be brought in to anoint the sick person are not priests ordained by a bishop, but the older persons in age in any community, and that therefore a priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction: let him be anathema.”

“Can the Sacrament of Extreme Unction be validly administered with oil not consecrated by an episcopal blessing?”—Response. Negative. The Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition condemned the contrary doctrine as rash and proximate to error, 15 January 1655.

“In a case of necessity, can a parish priest, for the validity of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, use oil blessed by himself?—Response. Negative, according to the decree of Thursday, in the presence of His Holiness, on 13 January 1611.” Holy Office, 14 September 1842.

“Oil blessed by a priest is matter altogether unsuitable for confecting the “Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and it cannot be validly used even in extreme necessity.” Holy Office, 15 May 1878.

1. Iacobus, a sick man, after the anointing of the hands and before the anointing of the feet and loins, seemed to all those standing by already to have breathed forth his spirit. Hence Ioannes the priest abstained from completing the two aforesaid anointings. But after a quarter of an hour he noticed that the sick man was still living. Hence with great anxiety he asks: what must he do?

R. Since all the essential anointings had already been duly performed, nothing seems to have to be repeated, not even under condition; nor does anything seem to have to be added. D'Annibale 420; I. M. 864, 868.

2. Augustinus, a parish priest, administering extreme unction in a case of urgent necessity, since he did not have the Ritual before his hands, used this form, which then occurred to his memory: I anoint thee with holy oil, that through His mercy God may pardon thee, etc. - Is it valid?

R. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 711, dub. 3, says: "Bonacina, etc., deny it. But Suarez, Laymann, Filliucci, Henriquez, Reginaldus, and the others more commonly apud the Salmanticenses, affirm more probably, although they say that the matter is uncertain. The reason is that by these words the substance of the form is already expressed." - I. M. 865.

674. Principles. - I. The remote matter is Oil blessed by the Bishop. This is established from the Council of Trent, session 14, On Extreme Unction, chapter 1, where it is thus said: The Church understood the matter (of this Sacrament) to be Oil blessed by the Bishop; for the anointing most aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which the soul of the sick person is invisibly anointed.

II. The Oil of Extreme Unction, or of the sick, is to be blessed by the diocesan Bishop, or, when the See is vacant, by another neighboring Bishop, on the Supper of the Lord, just as Chrism is, and is to be renewed every year, though not for the validity of the Sacrament. Thus from the precept of Clement VIII in St. Ligorius, no. 708; and the Salmanticenses, chapter 2, no. 10. This is also established from the perpetual practice of the Church and from the Roman Ritual, On Extreme Unction, where it is said: The holy Oil is to be renewed every year on the Supper of the Lord, the old having been burned.

675. • III. The proximate matter is the anointing of certain parts of the body, which are at least the five senses. For the anointing is to be made: first, on the eyes, or on the eyelids; second, on the ears; third, on the nostrils; fourth, on the mouth, or on the lower lip; fifth, on the hands, on the outside for Priests and on the inside for laymen; sixth, on the feet, or on the tops of the feet; seventh, on the loins; but this last is omitted for women, and also in men if it cannot easily be done, namely, if the sick person cannot be moved. Indeed, today, says Scavini, it is omitted in every case and for everyone.

676. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Does the precept of renewing the oil bind under grave sin?

Reply. Yes, as it seems, because the matter appears sufficiently grave. Nevertheless, if new oil cannot be obtained, it is licit to use the old. - St. Ligorius, no. 708.

But if perhaps the blessed Oil is going to run short within the year, and no other can be obtained, other unblessed oil, in a smaller quantity, nevertheless, can be poured into the blessed Oil. - Roman Ritual. And this can be done repeatedly, although little by little a quantity even much greater than that consecrated by the Bishop at the beginning is added, provided, nevertheless, that in each admixture it is smaller than the other part into which it is poured. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 2. Must the oil necessarily be from olives?

Reply. Yes. The reason is: first, because by the name oil, properly speaking and according to common usage, olive oil is understood. Second, this is established elsewhere from the Decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians, in which it is read concerning Extreme Unction: Its matter is olive oil. Third, it is also evident from the whole of tradition and the unanimous consent of the Doctors. - See St. Ligorius, no. 708.

677. • QUESTION 3. Must this oil necessarily be blessed by the Bishop?

Reply. Yes. This is established from various Declarations of Paul V and, most recently, of Gregory XVI on September 4, 1842.

QUESTION 4. Must the oil be blessed in relation to Extreme Unction?

Reply. It is disputed. There is a twofold probable opinion, as St. Ligorius says, no. 709. Some deny it, because the Church requires nothing other than that the oil be blessed by the Bishop. Hence (they say) the Oil of the sick and Chrism can validly be employed for making the anointings. Others, however, affirm it, because just as Chrism is deputed by its proper blessing for Confirmation, so also the Oil of the sick for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. In practice the safer course must altogether be followed, except in a case of necessity, in which this Sacrament is to be administered conditionally with another blessed Oil, and afterward, if the Oil of the sick can be obtained, it is to be repeated. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

I said with another blessed oil, for a threefold holy Oil is distinguished, which is blessed by the Bishop in the same ceremony on Thursday of the Supper of the Lord, namely, the Oil of the sick, the Oil of catechumens, and holy Chrism, or Oil with balsam mixed into it. First, the Oil of the sick serves only for anointing the sick in danger of death and for the consecration of bells in the external Anointing, for Chrism is employed for the internal one. Second, the Oil of catechumens is deputed for anointing catechumens on the breast and between the shoulder blades before Baptism, for consecrating the hands of newly ordained priests, and likewise for certain other consecrations, for example, of kings, etc. Third, Chrism is employed in the Sacrament of Confirmation, in the ceremonies of Baptism after the Sacrament has already been conferred, and for other consecrations, for example, of a chalice, paten, ciborium, altar, bell (on the inside), etc. - See the Roman Pontifical, especially where it treats of the ceremonies of Thursday of the Supper of the Lord.

678. • QUESTION 5. Is the anointing of the five senses of the necessity of the Sacrament?

Reply. It appears more probable that it must be affirmed, with the more common opinion of the Theologians, to which the practice of the Church agrees; and this practice is always to be observed, except in a case of necessity. Nevertheless, the negative opinion is called speculatively probable by St. Ligorius, no. 710.

679. • QUESTION 6. Is a double anointing on paired parts required by the necessity of the Sacrament, for example, on both eyes, both ears, etc.?

Reply. No, because the whole sense is present in one part. Nevertheless, outside a case of necessity the double anointing is to be observed by force of precept. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 7. How must the anointings be made?

Reply. The anointings must be made with the right thumb of the Priest, who must utter the form at the same time and anoints the sick person in the manner of a cross. Thus from the Roman Ritual. But these things pertain to liceity, not to validity. On paired members, however, one begins with the right, for example, with the right eye, etc. - Roman Ritual.

680. • QUESTION 8. Must an order among the anointings of the various senses be observed by the necessity of the Sacrament?

Reply. No. The reason is that an inversion of this kind in no way impedes the signification of the Sacrament. Nevertheless, they commonly say that such an inversion is gravely illicit because it is contrary to the usage of the Church in a notable matter. - St. Ligorius, no. 710, at the end, etc.

QUESTION 9. Can Extreme Unction be conferred upon those who are mute, deaf, or blind from birth?

Reply. Yes; for they can be anointed near the organs which they lack; for although they did not sin externally through them, nevertheless, through the interior powers of the soul to which they correspond they could have sinned ¹.

¹ It does not appear necessary to have recourse to this reason. For the Sacraments by their own power effect the infusion of sanctifying grace; and this grace, if a suitable disposition is not lacking in the subject, expels all sins whatsoever, whether they were perpetrated by the external senses or by the internal powers alone.

681. • QUESTION 10. How is a sick person deprived of a hand or foot, etc., to be anointed?

Reply. The anointing is to be made on the part nearest to the mutilated member; for thus the Roman Ritual speaks: If anyone is mutilated in some member, let the part nearest to that place be anointed with the same form of words.

QUESTION 11. Does one drop of oil alone suffice for making the anointings?

Reply. More probably, yes. The reason is that he who anoints with one drop of oil truly anoints; for oil is diffused more than other liquids. - Thus St. Ligorius as more probable, Lacroix, no. 2094, and others more commonly. - But some deny it, because to anoint is to diffuse oil over various parts, which is not done by a single drop of oil. But it is replied that the oil is diffused over various parts when the five senses are anointed, even if the same drop is employed. In practice it is safer, and certainly suffices for the validity of the Sacrament, to dip the extremity of the finger into the oil for each of the particular anointings which are made under the repeated form.

QUESTION 12. In time of plague or of some contagious disease, is it licit to perform the sacred anointings by means of a brush?

Reply. Yes, at least more probably, from Benedict XIV, who brings forward many authors for this opinion. (On the Synod, book 13, chapter 19.)

682. • The form of Extreme Unction is this: Through this holy anointing and His most tender mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned through sight (the eye having been anointed, and so concerning the others). This is established from the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter On Extreme Unction, and from the Roman Ritual. The form is to be repeated integrally for each part to be anointed, expressing the member which is then anointed, namely, through sight when anointing the eyes, through hearing in the anointing of the ears, etc.

683. Questions. - QUESTION 1. For the validity of the Sacrament, is the expression of each sense required, namely, THROUGH SIGHT, THROUGH HEARING, etc.?

Reply. It is disputed. Some deny it because it is not found in the form of the Greeks, which nevertheless is admitted by the Church as valid. Others affirm it because through one anointing and the form corresponding to it there are remitted not the remnants of sins of every kind, but only of those which were committed through that sense. Since, therefore, the matter is doubtful, the expression of the sense must be employed under grave sin. - Billuart.

QUESTION 2. Which words are essential to the form?

Reply. They are the following: Through this anointing, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned, with the word expressing the sense, that is, through sight, etc.

QUESTION 3. Does one form suffice for all the senses for validity, if the individual senses are distinctly expressed and anointed?

Reply. It is disputed. Some affirm it because this form is virtually multiple and is equivalent to several particular forms, and thus specially signifies the effect of each particular form. Others, however, deny it, because, since the partial matters, namely, the anointings, are distinct, particular forms must also correspond to each.

Nevertheless, when necessity urges, this general form is to be recommended: Through this holy anointing and His most tender mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned through the senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. But the senses are to be anointed while they are being expressed. If time remains, however, the anointings are to be repeated conditionally with the form proper to each, and the other omitted prayers are to be added, as prescribed in the Ritual. - St. Ligorius, no. 710.

— Extreme Unction is a sacrament instituted by Christ, "the consummative sacrament of the whole Christian life"⁽¹⁾, in which through sacred anointings under the prescribed words there is conferred on the sick perfect health of soul and also restoration of bodily health if this is more expedient (cf. St. Th., in 4 Sent., d. 23, q. 1, a. 2).

The proper grace of this sacrament is not usually proposed very distinctly. But if attention is given to the words of St. James, Catholic Epistle 5:15, where this sacrament is promulgated and commended⁽²⁾: "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up⁽³⁾, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him"; to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, sess. XIV; to the form of the sacrament: "May the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned"; it is sufficiently established that the special virtue of this sacrament looks chiefly to this: that, wiping away the remains of sin, it may relieve and strengthen the mind of the sick man; perfect the expiation of sins, insofar as is required; and thus dispose the Christian proximately for obtaining the blessed life of heaven, unless bodily health is more expedient for him. For the words "and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him" are to be understood primarily of the healing of wounds and the remission of debts which have been left after sin, since the other sacraments, Baptism and Penance, have been instituted directly unto the remission of faults; secondarily, however, they are to be received as concerning the removing of the faults themselves, both mortal and venial, in a disposed subject.

It can also be said that by the sacramental sign of oil, by which under the words "May He forgive whatever you have sinned" the sick person is anointed, this is signified: what soothing, healing, nourishing or strengthening oil is for bodily wounds, the same the oil of the sick works concerning the wounds of sin. It restores the sick person by the full extinction of sins (cf., besides Kern, De Extrema Unctione, C. Ruch, in Vacant, Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, article "Extreme Onction dans l'Ecriture sainte").

Distinctly, therefore, as effects of this sacrament we can number: 1. as the primary or principal effect, restoration of spiritual integrity, which brings with it confirmation of the weakened mind and extinction of punishments due for sins⁽⁴⁾; 2. as a secondary effect, not however merely accidental as in the sacraments of the living properly so called, remission of faults, both venial and mortal: of mortal faults indeed if a man can neither confess nor be contrite and is at least attrite; 3. as a conditional effect, health of the body "where it shall be expedient for the salvation of the soul"⁽⁵⁾. For illness itself is a consequence of sin. This effect, according to Trent, loc. cit., Extreme Unction sometimes works; and writers admonish that for this effect it is required that the matter not yet be naturally desperate (cf. Kern, S.J., De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis).

In Extreme Unction, the res et sacramentum is, according to C. Billot (De sacramentis, thesis VI), a certain consigning of the sick man into the hands of the merciful God, while R. P. de la Taille places it in the alleviation of bodily illness, "which, just as among the sacramental effects it is numbered in the first place by St. James, so also first of all it is designated by the rite of medicinal anointing, and this again is the demonstrative and efficacious symbol of the spiritual healing by which there are destroyed in the soul the remains of sin, or of the illness of the soul contracted from sin and remaining even after sin has been forgiven."

⁽¹⁾ Trent, sess. XIV, at the beginning, relates that it was so judged by the Fathers.

⁽²⁾ Trent, sess. XIV, c. 1.

⁽³⁾ The Greek egerei properly signifies "will raise up, will lift up."

⁽⁴⁾ "That Extreme Unction has the virtue of wiping away every debt of temporal punishment has been proved through the whole of c. I of book II." So Kern, p. 189, in his excellent dogmatic treatise on Extreme Unction (cf. also p. 104, where he also alleges Suarez, in 3 p., d. 41, s. 1, n. 17).

⁽⁵⁾ Trent, sess. XIV, c. 2.

— The remote matter of this sacrament is oil of olives blessed by a bishop or by a priest from a faculty of the Holy See (c. 949). And so that the validity may be certain, the oil must be blessed for Extreme Unction⁽¹⁾, although the oil of catechumens, or even chrism, can be used with probable validity. That oil is to be renewed yearly on the Lord's Supper, the old oil having been burned; yet it will be lawful to use the old until the new is obtained. But to neglect the renewal of the oil is held as grave fault (St. Alph., VI, 208). It will be lawful here also, when matter is lacking, to add a smaller quantity of non-blessed oil, which, by accession, is itself judged blessed.

The proximate matter is the anointing of certain parts of the body, that is, at least by necessity of precept, of the five senses, or, if they are mutilated, of neighboring parts. From the Code, c. 947, the anointing of the reins is now always to be omitted; but the anointing of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause. Even those blind from birth are to be anointed on the eyes or in a nearer place.

I say, at least by necessity of precept. For since neither the epistle of St. James nor the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, expressly mentions plurality of anointings, one single anointing which is done on one sense or on a principal part of the body seems essential to the sacrament. And now it is entirely established that in a case of necessity one anointing suffices "on one sense, or more correctly on the forehead, with the prescribed shorter form" (c. 947). Necessity can arise either from the imminent death of the sick person himself, or from danger of contagion, or from a physical obstacle to touching the accustomed places to be anointed. When there is opportunity, the anointing must then be made on the forehead itself. If, however, something prevents this, an anointing on one sense is also safely performed. Therefore the Code merely declares that the anointing is more correctly made on the forehead.

But it expressly commands in the same c. 947, §1, that the anointings "be accurately performed in the order and manner prescribed in the ritual books." Indeed, even in a case of necessity, there remains the obligation "of supplying the individual anointings, when the danger has ceased."

This obligation is posited as absolute. It can reasonably be understood of a supplying which is morally united with the prior administration, and therefore is not too much separated from it. Taking an example from the received opinions concerning supplying one or the other consecration which has been invalid, Genicot-Salsmans (II, 417) think the obligation of supplying ceases after an hour. Yet a different opinion, adhering to the words of the Code, holds that the anointings are to be supplied as long as the same dangerous illness lasts, and is defended by this further reason. Why are the omitted anointings to be supplied? So that a fuller effect may be obtained from the integral reception of the sacrament. This fuller effect does not seem, contrary to what Lehmkuhl, II, 718, 3, asserts, to be attributed to a better disposition of the subject stimulated by the repeated ceremony of anointings; for once the sacrament has been received, its operation ceases. Nor is one stimulated who is destitute of the senses. But, as Noldin, III, 431, explains, the sacrament itself is received more fully, that is, Extreme Unction, under this respect, is to be compared with the Eucharist, which indeed is received fully under one species, but more integrally under both, so that reception of the other species increases grace if it finds the subject better disposed. Thus "any anointing with its form completely and perfectly signifies the effect of the sacrament, and consequently also produces it" (Noldin, loc. cit.). Yet by new anointings the signification is repeated, and a new title of grace is placed, whether of the same grace, if the disposition has remained the same, or of a greater grace, if the subject is more perfectly disposed. But if things stand so, during the same illness the supplying of an omitted anointing can always be useful, and therefore seems to have to be done. A special efficacy for healing the sins which have been committed by individual senses named can also be admitted.

The words of the Code "when the danger has ceased" seem to be understood thus: when the imminent danger has ceased, by which regular administration was strictly or morally impeded. They cannot be understood of the danger of death being removed, since then Extreme Unction can no longer be administered. Therefore, if it were said "yet while the danger has not ceased," that would be understood equally well, indeed more easily.

The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office wisely responded, March 9, 1917 (Periodica, VIII, p. 192), that those anointings are to be supplied absolutely, not conditionally. For conditional administration would suppose that the prior one had been doubtful, which cannot be admitted. Nor is Extreme Unction repeated, but it is perfected.

The anointing of a sense which previously had been impeded, or omitted through forgetfulness, or not well performed, is also to be supplied.

⁽¹⁾ On the pyx the letter I is marked. In the Latin Church, the faculty is not granted to a priest.

— The manner of making the anointings is this. 1. Although the use of an instrument does not impede the validity of the sacrament, nevertheless, "outside the case of grave necessity, the anointings are to be made by the very hand of the minister and with no instrument used" (c. 943, §4). 2. It is not required that the oil flow, and it certainly suffices if you dip the tip of the finger in oil and anoint; indeed several think one drop suffices for anointing. So Palm., V, 851. 3. The parts to be anointed are the eyelids, the eyes being closed; the extremities of the ears; the extreme summit of the nose or both lateral wings of the nostrils; the mouth, the lips being compressed, or, if the mouth cannot be compressed, the lower or upper lip; the palms or hollow parts of the hands, yet in priests, in whom these have already been anointed elsewhere, the backs of the hands; the soles of the feet, or, according to the received custom, the tops of the feet. When a member is lacking, let the anointing be done on a neighboring part of the body (Roman Ritual); when one or the other of paired senses or organs is altogether lacking, let that one which is had be anointed. 4. "The minister, that is, the server, if he is in sacred orders, or the priest himself, after each anointing, is to wipe the anointed places with a new ball of cotton or of a similar thing, and place it in a clean vessel, and afterward take it to the church, burn it, and throw the ashes into the sacrarium" (Roman Ritual, c. 2, n. 9).

— The voluntary omission of one anointing is judged grave; indeed, unless the paired parts can be touched only with greater difficulty, it now seems grave not to anoint one or the other of the paired parts. But inversion of the order must be called light, although several contend, but without argument, that it is grave (cf. Lehmk., II, 720; Noldin, III, 435).

— The ordinary form is this: "Through this holy anointing and His most loving mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever through (sight, hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch, walking) you have sinned. Amen." The individual parts indicated within the parentheses are named, and at each one the words placed outside the parentheses are repeated.

The words "through this anointing," by which the sacramental action is indicated; "may the Lord forgive you," by which the effect of the sacrament is indicated in a general way, are essential.

The words holy, and His most loving mercy, are not essential, for these are sufficiently contained in the word forgive, nor is the word Amen essential.

One who has not designated the special sense indeed omits nothing which is essential to the sacrament, but he seems to administer the sacrament as it were all at once. Therefore one who has anointed several senses, naming none, but repeating the form, seems as it were several times to repeat the sacrament. And if there is a special efficacy for extinguishing sins which have been committed through the individual senses, he deprives the sick person of that particular utility. Yet observe that the effect extends beyond the province of the individual senses, since not all instruments of sin are named, and the Church itself has now suppressed the designation of the reins.

The words whatever you have sinned must be called essential, so that they may complete the signification begun by the word may He forgive.

In a case of necessity, this shorter formula, indicated by the Holy Office, April 25, 1906, is sufficient: "Through this holy anointing may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned. Amen."

It would be grave outside necessity to omit the designation of the senses, or the words themselves: "and His most loving mercy," since these notably adulterate the prescribed form. The deprecative formula must also be used under grave obligation, which plainly corresponds to the place of St. James: "and the prayer of the Church shall raise up the sick man."

Yet they deny that this is essential from the institution of Christ, since formerly in the Latin Church an indicative formula was used, He forgives, and this does not prevent the intention of praying.

The voluntary distraction of the minister, although blameworthy, since it does not remove the prayer, does not take away the validity of the sacrament.

— 1. Observation of ceremonies. He sins gravely who, outside necessity, administers this sacrament without any sacred vestment, or who omits the prayers to be recited by the priest himself before and after Extreme Unction.

It would be venial to anoint otherwise than in the form of a cross; to anoint with a finger other than the thumb, without just cause; to omit the stole or surplice; to administer the sacrament without any light, or alone, without a server.

Only by counsel are the penitential psalms, litanies, and other prayers to be recited by those standing by.

2. Custody. - "The parish priest shall diligently keep the oil of the sick in a clean and decently adorned place, in a silver or tin vessel" (c. 946).

It is forbidden to keep it at home "unless because of necessity or another reasonable cause, with the license of the Ordinary acceding" (c. 735).

A reasonable cause can be the distance by which the parish house is distant from the church. But custody in the tabernacle where the Most Holy Eucharist is kept is forbidden.

— I. Extreme Unction is a sacrament in which, through sacred anointings under the prescribed words, there is conferred on the sick perfect health of soul and also restoration of bodily health, if this is more expedient.

It operates directly toward removing the remains of sin. Therefore the primary effect is restoration of spiritual integrity; the secondary effect, remission of faults both venial and mortal: of mortal faults, if a man can neither confess nor be contrite; the conditional effect, health of the body, which is expedient. For illness itself is a consequence of sin.

II. The remote matter is oil of olives blessed by a bishop or, by faculty of the Holy See, by a priest, and, so that the validity may be certain, blessed for Extreme Unction. The annual renewal of the oil on the Lord's Supper cannot be neglected without grave fault.

The proximate matter is the anointing of certain parts of the body, that is, at least by precept, of the five senses. The anointing of the reins is now always omitted; the anointing of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause.

In a case of necessity, one anointing suffices, on one sense, or more correctly on the forehead, with the shorter formula. There then remains the obligation of supplying absolutely the individual anointings, when the urgent danger has ceased.

Manner. Outside grave necessity, the anointings must be made by hand. The eyelids are anointed; the extremities of the ears; the extreme summit of the nose or both lateral wings; the mouth, with the lips compressed, or if the mouth cannot be compressed, the lower or upper lip; the palms of the hands, or for priests the backs of the hands; the soles of the feet, or, as usage has it, the tops of the feet. It is not required that the oil flow. The assisting minister, if he is in sacred orders, otherwise the priest, wipes each of the anointed places with a new ball of cotton or similar thing.

The voluntary omission of one sense, indeed of one from paired senses if both can be touched without difficulty, but not inversion of order, is judged grave.

III. The form is: "Through this holy anointing and His most loving mercy may the Lord forgive you whatever through (sight, hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch, walking) you have sinned. Amen." The essential words are those under which a little line is drawn. In a case of necessity, from the decree of the Holy Office, April 25, 1906, it suffices to say the essential words, with Amen added.

The designation of the senses, the words "and His most loving mercy," and the deprecative formula are to be used under grave obligation.

IV. Ceremonies. 1. He would sin gravely who, without necessity, administers the sacrament without any sacred vestment; or who omits the prayers to be recited by the priest himself before and after Extreme Unction.

2. Without a reasonable cause approved by the Ordinary, the oil cannot be kept at home. Its custody in the tabernacle of the Most Holy Sacrament is forbidden.

568. Preliminary matters. Just as Confirmation is a certain complement of Baptism, so Extreme Unction is, as it were, the consummation of Penance. In Confirmation a baptized man is strengthened for strenuously defending the faith; in Extreme Unction, however, a man now about to depart from this world is strengthened for victoriously carrying through the final combat. St. Bonaventure beautifully and concisely institutes a comparison between Confirmation and Extreme Unction, saying:¹ "From the variation of the end in Confirmation and Extreme Unction there arises diversity ... in efficacy, because the former sacrament disposes one to struggle better, the latter to fly away more swiftly; in matter, because the former is in oil mixed with balsam, the latter, however, in pure oil; in form, because the former is in the indicative, the latter, however, in the deprecative; in place, because the former is on the forehead, the latter, however, on several parts; in time, because the former is in health, the latter, however, in sickness; in the recipient, because the former is not only for adults but also for children, the latter, however, only for adults; in the giver, because the former is from bishops, the latter, however, from any priests."

Besides the authors cited above in the first treatise, cf. Ignatius Schmitz, De effectibus sacramenti extremae unctionis, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1893; J. Kern, De sacramento extremae unctionis, Ratisbon, 1907; M. Heimbucher, Die heilige Ölung, Ratisbon, 1888.

We shall treat: 1. the notion and existence of Extreme Unction; 2. its matter and form; 3. its effects; 4. its subject; 5. its minister.

¹ Breviloquium, 6, 11.

569. Name. The sacrament of Extreme Unction has been called by many names, for example, holy oil, oil of blessing, oil of unction, the sacrament of those departing, and so forth. By the Greeks, however, it is called ἅγιον ἔλαιον, εὐχέλαιον, ὑστεραχρίσις, θεῖον μύρον, and so forth.

Definition. Extreme Unction is a sacrament of the New Law by which, through the anointing of blessed oil and the prayer of a priest, the salvation of soul and sometimes of body is conferred upon a man capable of malice and gravely ill.

This definition will become clearer from what is to be said below concerning the matter, form, effects, and subject of this sacrament.

Errors. Although the Waldensians and Wycliffites perhaps did not totally deny the existence of this sacrament, nevertheless they spoke of it rather irreverently.² Luther, in the sermon On the New Testament (in the year 1520), n. 24, still enumerates Extreme Unction among the sacraments, but in the book On the Babylonian Captivity (in the same year 1520) he rejects this sacrament, although he admits it as a kind of sacramental. Calvin,³ however, calls Extreme Unction "histrionic hypocrisy."

² Cf. Billuart, De extr. unct., diss. unica, a. 1.

³ Instit., l. 4, c. 19, § 18.

570. Thesis. Extreme Unction is a true sacrament of the New Testament.

It is defined as of faith. The Council of Florence⁴ says: "The fifth sacrament is Extreme Unction, whose matter is olive oil blessed by a bishop." The Council of Trent⁵ defines: "If anyone says that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ Our Lord and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but only a rite received from the Fathers or a human invention, let him be anathema."

Proof 1. From Sacred Scripture. "Is anyone among you sick? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."⁶ Almost all Protestants, from Martin Chemnitz down to Hase, explain this text of the gift of healings, which was signified by the anointing with oil. But this explanation is forced and false. For: a) If bodily healing were treated here, there is no reason why St. James should command the priests to be called. For then physicians, or those who have the gift of healings, which priests did not always exercise, ought rather to be called. b) The gift of healings was given not only for the sick who were bedridden, but also for the lame, blind, deaf, and so forth. Why, therefore, does St. James speak only of the sick? c) St. James adds: "And if he [the sick man] be in sins, they shall be forgiven him."⁷ But it is impossible for sins to be infallibly remitted by some natural anointing or prayer. Protestants indeed think that sins are remitted neither through the anointing nor through the prayer, but through the faith of the man anointed; but this faith is asserted gratuitously, since the Apostle speaks of the prayer of faith of the priests, and not of the man anointed.

Since these things are so, the argument from the cited text of St. James is constructed thus: A sacrament is a sensible sign efficacious of grace, permanently instituted by Christ. But Extreme Unction is such a sign. Therefore Extreme Unction is a true sacrament. Proof of the minor: Extreme Unction is: a) a sensible sign, for a sensible anointing and the words of the priest are employed; b) it effects grace, because it remits sins, if any are present; c) it was permanently instituted by Christ. This is evident a priori, because no one except God alone can annex grace to a sensible sign. Furthermore, St. James speaks neither to one church nor for one time, but simply, without any limitation. Moreover, he could not do this except by the authority of God.

If it is further asked when Christ instituted this sacrament, theologians do not agree. Some (Maldonatus, Sainte-Beuve, and others) think that Christ instituted this sacrament already before the Passion, since it is said of the Apostles in Mark 6:13: "They anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them"; but this opinion is deservedly rejected, since the Apostles were not yet priests at that time and consequently could not administer this sacrament. Therefore the better and more common opinion teaches that Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ together with the sacrament of Penance after the Resurrection and was afterward promulgated by St. James.

Proof 2. From tradition. Origen⁸ (third century) presents Extreme Unction as a complement of the sacrament of Penance. Innocent I (402-417), when asked by Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, concerning certain doubts about this sacrament, responds: 1. that the words of St. James are to be understood of the faithful who are sick; 2. that this anointing can be performed both by bishops and by priests; 3. that this anointing is not to be administered to public penitents, "because it is a kind of sacrament. For to those to whom the other sacraments are denied, how is it thought that one kind can be granted?"⁹ St. Gregory the Great (sixth century) not only knows this sacrament, but in his Sacramentary prescribes the manner of administering it.¹⁰ For other testimonies of the ancients, see Drouven.¹¹ The Scholastics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and thereafter all Catholic authors, hold Extreme Unction to be a true sacrament, although some (Hugh of St. Victor, the Master of the Sentences, St. Bonaventure) teach that it was instituted not by Christ, but by the Apostle St. James under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This opinion, however, can no longer be maintained today because of the canon of the Council of Trent already cited above.¹²

Proof 3. From prescription, that is, from the consent of the Eastern Churches, in whose most ancient Euchologia the rite of this sacrament is found.¹³

Proof 4. From the reason of fittingness. Extreme Unction very fittingly assists man in the final danger of death. For it can be administered even to those deprived of their senses, upon whom another sacrament can scarcely, if at all, be conferred. Furthermore, in agony man most needs assistance. Certainly assistance perhaps is already afforded through the Eucharist and Penance, but perhaps the remnants of sins remain. Moreover, the Eucharist cannot always be given to the dying person. Therefore it is most fitting that Christ, who during His earthly life assisted so many sick persons, should have instituted Extreme Unction as a permanent sacrament and the best assistance for a happy passage into eternal life.

⁴ Denz., n. 700.

⁵ Sess. 14, can. 1, De extr. unct. (Denz., n. 926).

⁶ James 5:14 ff.

⁷ κἂν ἁμαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ.

⁸ Hom. 2 in Lev., n. 4 (Migne, Patr. lat. 12, 419). For an explanation of this text, cf. Kern, De sacr. extr. unct., p. 53.

⁹ Ep. 25 to Decentius, n. 8 (Denz., n. 99).

¹⁰ In Migne, Patr. lat. 78, 233.

¹¹ De re sacr., l. 7, q. 1, c. 1.

¹² P. 408, note 5.

¹³ Cf. Goar, Euchol., p. 408 ff., and Drouven, loc. cit.

571. 1. The valid remote matter is: a) olive oil, b) blessed by a bishop, and c) specially blessed as the oil of the sick. The first part of this proposition is certain, the second most probable, the third more true.

a) For St. James said: "Anointing him with oil," and by the usage of the Church olive oil is understood under the name of oil.

b) From the words of the Council of Florence cited above it is evident that the oil is to be blessed by a bishop. This episcopal blessing indeed appears to be necessary for the validity of the sacrament. Therefore the Holy Office declared the contrary opinion rash and proximate to error,¹⁴ and declared oil blessed by a priest to be matter unfit for confecting the sacrament of Extreme Unction. Hence, not even in necessity can a priest administer this sacrament with oil blessed by himself, when it is a question of a dying person deprived of his senses who previously gave no sign of sorrow and consequently could be absolved only very doubtfully. Thus the Holy Office, May 15, 1878.¹⁵

Nevertheless, by delegation of the Supreme Pontiff (whether express or tacit), even a simple priest can bless the oil.¹⁶ Certain missionaries in distant regions obtain the express delegation of the Supreme Pontiff; but all priests of the united Greek rite, who according to the most ancient discipline are accustomed to bless the oil for administering Extreme Unction, have tacit delegation.

c) The oil is not only to be blessed by a bishop, but is also to be blessed specially in order to this sacrament, or as the oil of the sick. Thus the more common and more true opinion.¹⁷ Hence, outside a case of urgent necessity, this sacrament cannot licitly be administered with the oil of catechumens or with chrism, since these are doubtful matter. Cf. above, n. 154, 4.

¹⁴ Holy Office, January 13, 1611, under Paul V (Denz., n. 1628), and September 14, 1842 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 956).

¹⁵ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1494.

¹⁶ Benedict XIV, Bull Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, and De syn. dioec., l. 8, c. 1, n. 4; Code of Canon Law, c. 945.

¹⁷ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 709; cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 945.

572. 2. The licit remote matter in ordinary cases is oil blessed a) in the same year and b) by the bishop of the diocese.

Each year, on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, the oil of the sick is to be blessed by the bishop. The individual churches must burn the old oil in the lamp burning before the Most Holy Sacrament and procure for themselves new blessed oil; this precept indeed appears to be grave.¹⁸ If during the year the oil begins to run short and other blessed oil cannot be obtained, it is lawful to mix in unblessed oil, and this several times, but always in a smaller quantity than that which remained.¹⁹ The oil of the sick is to be blessed by the bishop of the diocese (and, when the see is vacant, by a neighboring bishop). But all priests (even exempt regulars) must use oil blessed by the bishop of the place; this precept indeed appears to some authors to be grave.²⁰

The Roman Catechism²¹ thus describes the fittingness of this matter: "This matter most aptly signifies that which is effected inwardly in the soul by the power of the sacrament; for just as oil is of great benefit for mitigating the pains of the body, so the power of the sacrament lessens the sadness and pain of the soul. Oil, moreover, restores health, brings cheerfulness, and supplies nourishment, as it were, to light; and furthermore it is most suited for restoring the strength of a wearied body. All these things declare what is effected in the sick person by divine power through the administration of this sacrament."

Place of reservation. The oil of the sick is to be diligently kept in a clean and becomingly adorned place, in a vessel of silver or tin; nor is it to be retained at home except because of necessity or another reasonable cause, with the permission of the Ordinary.²²

¹⁸ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 708.

¹⁹ Roman Ritual, tit. 5, c. 1, n. 3.

²⁰ Cf. Holy Office, January 10, 1850.

²¹ P. 2, c. 6, q. 5.

²² Code of Canon Law, cc. 735 and 946.

573. 3. The proximate matter of this sacrament is the application of the remote matter, that is, the anointing of the sick person made with blessed oil.

Whether several anointings are required for the validity of the sacrament, or whether one (on the forehead) suffices, was formerly controverted. The older theologians, such as St. Thomas,²³ St. Bonaventure,²⁴ and several others cited by St. Alphonsus,²⁵ affirm that several anointings are necessary, because, although no mention is made of several anointings in the words of St. James, nevertheless this is gathered from the constant usage of the Church. Almost all modern authors deny the necessity of several anointings: a) because even in one anointing made on the forehead the whole signification of the sacrament is had, since on the forehead or in the head all the external and internal senses are united; and then b) because a most diverse practice has always existed in the Church concerning this matter. Thus, from the diverse Rituals re-edited and collected by Martène,²⁶ it is evident that anointings were made on the neck, on the throat, between the shoulder blades, on the crown of the head, on the forehead, on the cheeks, on the temples, on the breast, on the navel, on the head alone, on the chin, and so forth. In a case of necessity, one anointing on the forehead indeed suffices with the form: "Through this holy anointing may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned. Amen." But when the danger has ceased, the individual anointings are to be supplied,²⁷ and indeed not conditionally, but absolutely.

According to the discipline in force, the anointing of the loins is always to be omitted, but the anointing of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause.²⁸

²³ Suppl., q. 32, a. 6.

²⁴ In 4, dist. 23, a. 2, q. 3.

²⁵ Loc. cit., n. 710.

²⁶ De antiq. Eccl. rit., l. 1, c. 7.

²⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 947, § 1.

²⁸ Ibid., §§ 2 and 3.

574. The manner of making the anointings. The anointings are to be made: a) with the right thumb; b) in the form of a cross; c) on each organ (if it is present), beginning with the right; d) with the order of the senses prescribed in the Ritual and the other rubrics observed.

As to a). Outside a case of grave necessity, the anointings are not to be made with another finger or with an instrument.²⁹ A necessity of using an instrument, for example, a brush, can be present if, for example, the sick person is suffering from plague or another very contagious disease. The instrument is to be burned after use.

As to b). Thus according to the precept of the Ritual, which nevertheless does not appear to oblige under grave sin. Consequently, if it is difficult to form a cross, it suffices to perform the anointing by a simple touch.

As to c). There appears to exist a grave precept of the Church to anoint both organs of the senses, unless some necessity excuses, for example, great difficulty in turning the sick person.³⁰ The hands, which in other sick persons must be anointed on the inside, are to be anointed on the outside in priests, since their hands were already anointed on the inside in ordination.

As to d). It is not indeed of the necessity of the sacrament to observe the order among the anointings of the parts, but theologians almost commonly teach (with some denying it) that an inversion of the order is gravely illicit if it is done without a grave cause.³¹

If someone lacks some organ, he is to be anointed on the neighboring part; but if he lacks some sense, as, for example, those blind from birth, nevertheless the organ of that sense is to be anointed. Formerly seven anointings were prescribed, namely, as the Council of Florence says, following the exposition of St. Thomas:³² "On the eyes on account of sight, on the ears on account of hearing, on the nostrils on account of smell, on the mouth on account of taste or speech, on the hands on account of touch, on the feet on account of walking, on the loins on account of the pleasure prevailing there." But today the seventh anointing is always to be omitted; the sixth, however, can be omitted for any reasonable cause, as has already been said.

The prayers prescribed in the Ritual, both after and before the anointing, of themselves oblige under grave sin (unless necessity excuses); the litanies and penitential psalms, however, are not prescribed, but are commended.

In ancient times Extreme Unction was administered before Holy Viaticum, and it is still done thus in the rite of the Friars Preachers; but according to the Roman rite now in force, this sacrament is conferred after Viaticum.

²⁹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, May 9, 1857; August 31, 1872; July 12, 1901; Code of Canon Law, c. 947, § 4.

³⁰ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 720.

³¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 710.

³² Suppl., q. 32, a. 6.

575. 4. The form of Extreme Unction in the Latin Church is: "Through this holy anointing and His most tender mercy, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned (through sight, hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch, walking). Amen." If the priest doubts whether the person to be anointed still lives, let him say: "If you are alive, through this holy anointing," and so forth.³³

The Greek form is this: "Holy Father, physician of souls and bodies, who sent Your Only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, healing every disease and delivering us from death, heal also Your servant N. from the infirmity of body which holds him, and give him life through the grace of Your Christ, through the intercessions of ... (the names of saints are recited) and of all the saints. Amen."³⁴

In the form of Extreme Unction, only those words are essential which express the act of anointing and the effect of the sacrament, namely, the health of soul and body. Therefore in the form of the Latin Church only these words are essential: "Through this anointing may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned."³⁵

According to the discipline in force, in a case of necessity the form prescribed by the Holy Office on April 25, 1906, is to be employed: "Through this holy anointing may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned. Amen." But when the sacrament has been conferred by one anointing under this form, afterward, when the danger has ceased, the individual anointings are to be supplied, and this not conditionally but absolutely.³⁶ This indeed is prescribed by the Church, not because otherwise the validity of the sacrament would be doubtful, but for the greater benefit of the sick person and for greater reverence toward the sacrament.

The deprecative form. Theologians dispute greatly whether the form of Extreme Unction must necessarily be deprecative or can be indicative. Many have taught that an indicative form is valid, for example, Durandus, Tournely, Juénin, and, among modern authors, Christian Pesch,³⁷ who confidently says: "Therefore, with these three sacraments [the Eucharist, Penance, Matrimony] excepted, in all the other sacraments the form is deprecative according to its sense in the same manner as in Extreme Unction; nor can any solid argument be brought forward why in Extreme Unction the form ought to be more deprecative than in the other sacraments." Therefore, according to this author, the form of Extreme Unction is no more deprecative according to its sense than, for example, the form of Baptism. St. Thomas,³⁸ Blessed Albert,³⁹ St. Bonaventure,⁴⁰ the Roman Catechism,⁴¹ and very many theologians of the first rank cited by St. Alphonsus⁴² deservedly reject this opinion; St. Alphonsus himself also calls the opinion of St. Thomas the more true and more common. The reason, however, is had from the very words of St. James: "And let them pray over him, anointing him with oil ... and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man." Nor do the various ancient forms which appear to have been pronounced in the indicative manner stand in the way, because: a) it is by no means evident that all the ancient forms were valid; b) in those words which are found in all the forms cited (the legitimate ones), "that you may be able," since they are optative, a prayer or wish is included, so that the sense is: I anoint you, praying to God that you may be able, and so forth.⁴³

³³ Roman Ritual, tit. 5, c. 1, n. 14. If the priest doubts whether the person to be anointed (being deprived of his senses) is baptized, or whether he has the intention of receiving the sacrament, let him add mentally the condition: "if you are capable"; but let him never add the condition: "if you are rightly disposed."

³⁴ Goar, Euchol., p. 417. Martène reviews many other ancient forms, De antiq. Eccl. rit., l. 1, c. 7, a. 4.

³⁵ Cf. Billuart, De extr. unct., a. 3, first question.

³⁶ Holy Office, March 9, 1917 (Acta Apost. Sed. IX, 178); Code of Canon Law, c. 947, § 1.

³⁷ Prael. dogm. VII, n. 533.

³⁸ Suppl., q. 29, a. 8.

³⁹ In 4, dist. 23, a. 4, q. 2.

⁴⁰ In 4, dist. 23, a. 1, q. 4.

⁴¹ P. 2, c. 6, qq. 6 and 7.

⁴² Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 711.

⁴³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., and Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec., l. 8, c. 2, toward the end.

e) In a case of necessity, Extreme Unction is to be ministered by one anointing only on the forehead, with the form: Through this holy anointing may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned. Amen. But if death has not followed, the other anointings are to be added as indicated in the ritual, and indeed absolutely, not under condition. The anointing on the loins is now to be omitted; the anointing of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause, can. 947.

One must treat: 1. Of the notion and effect of this Sacrament. 2. Of the matter and form by which it is constituted.

1871. DEFINITION. Extreme Unction is "a Sacrament instituted by Christ and promulgated by Blessed James, for conferring the health of the soul, or even of the body, on the sick who are in danger of life, through the anointing of blessed oil and the prayer of the priest."¹¹

Principles. - I. Extreme Unction is truly and properly a SACRAMENT of the New Law. - It is of faith; and it is clear: 1. from the words of James (5, 14 and 15): "Is any one of you sick? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." - 2. From Trent, sess. 14, on Extreme Unction, can. 1: "If anyone shall say that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but only a rite accepted from the Fathers, or a human figment: let him be anathema."

This Sacrament was instituted by Christ the Lord after the resurrection, as the more common opinion holds with Suarez; and it was promulgated by St. James, as is clear from the text alleged above.¹²

1872. II. Besides sanctifying grace, which, like the other Sacraments, it produces, Extreme Unction has ITS OWN PROPER EFFECTS, which are the following:

1. The PRIMARY effect is to strengthen the soul in its last agony. "This Sacrament," says the Council of Trent (sess. 14, on E. U., cap. 2), "alleviates and confirms the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him great confidence in the divine mercy; by which the sick man, supported, both bears more lightly the inconveniences and labors of disease, and more easily resists the temptations of the devil lying in wait for his heel."

2. The SECONDARY effect is threefold: 1. To delete the remnants of sin, such as obscurity of mind, hardness of heart, love of sensible things, diffidences, anxieties, and similar things which are contracted from sins. - 2. To take away part of the punishments which remain to be expiated for sins. (These two effects are produced greater or lesser according to the degree of disposition of the sick person.) - 3. To confer health of body, if it is expedient for the health of the soul, as Trent has it (loc. cit.); and to this end the prayers placed in the Ritual are also directed. But the Sacrament does not work this effect by way of miracle, lest faith be emptied out; but by a certain supernatural power, which aids natural causes, as far as the body is capable of their action.¹³

1873. Questions. Q. 1. Whether and in what way sins ARE REMITTED through Extreme Unction?

Resp. 1. Although the principal effect of this Sacrament is not to remit sins, neither mortal nor venial, as the Thomists more commonly and more probably teach against the Scotists, and as the Apostle James himself seems to suggest, saying conditionally "and, if he be in sins"; nevertheless, remission of sins must be specially attributed to it; for the Apostle continues, saying: "they shall be forgiven him," and Trent teaches similarly: "delicts, if any are still to be expiated, it wipes away."

Resp. 2. But concerning the mode in which mortal sins are remitted, Theologians do not agree. - Some with Gonet, Sporer, etc., to whom St. Thomas seems to give support,¹⁴ say that they are remitted per accidens, since it is a question of a Sacrament of the living; but others more probably and more commonly, with Suarez, Tournely, etc., teach that they are remitted per se, not indeed directly, but consequently; for it is clear that Extreme Unction was instituted to take away the remnants of sins; but because these cannot be taken away from a soul in which sin is found, unless the sin itself is first taken away, therefore this Sacrament, consequently, takes away sin.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether through EACH ANOINTING partial grace is conferred?

Resp. 1. Suarez and others affirm it; because any anointing with its own form already signifies grace independently of the other anointings. - 2. But St. Thomas with the more common opinion denies it; because no anointing of itself constitutes the Sacrament, nor even a partial Sacrament; hence, grace is not conferred unless when the Sacrament is completed by the last anointing. - Each opinion is probable.¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether this Sacrament can be VALID and UNFORMED, so that, with the obstacle receding, grace is conferred?

Resp. "The Doctors commonly affirm. Hence the Salmanticenses with others infer that, if a sick person in good faith, or destitute of senses, received the Sacrament in mortal sin, it suffices that afterwards he have attrition, for grace to be received. Otherwise, if in bad faith. - But this runs, if the obstacle is removed while the same disease and danger persevere, at least as regards the effect of special helps, as Suarez and others say."¹⁷

From these things you will gather that through Extreme Unction souls often are saved, both because the Sacrament supplies strength and helps without which the sick person would yield victory to the devil; and because it is received more easily with a lesser disposition, and with a more lasting efficacy; and finally because it is the most salutary admonition of all concerning the proximity of death.¹⁸

1874. A twofold matter is distinguished, namely remote and proximate.

I. The REMOTE matter is oil expressed from olives, and blessed by a special blessing by a Bishop.¹

But the choice of this matter was most fitting: "for, as OIL greatly profits for mitigating pains of the body, so the power of the Sacrament diminishes the sadness and pain of the soul. OIL besides restores health, brings cheerfulness, and supplies, as it were, food to light; and then it is most greatly accommodated to restoring the strength of a wearied body. All these things declare what, in the sick person, is effected by divine power through the administration of this Sacrament." - Thus the Roman Catechism.²

We said, 1. IT IS OIL; for it is clear from the words of the Apostle, anointing him with oil; and this oil, by necessity or validity of the Sacrament, must be the juice of the olive; because in common use this juice alone is designated by the name of oil. Hence Eugene IV, in the Decree to the Armenians, expressly names oil of olive. "This oil moreover, at least from the precept of the Church, ought to be simple, that is, without any admixture of another liquid," as Benedict XIV teaches.³

2. BLESSED BY A BISHOP: wherefore Trent (sess. 14, cap. 1) has these words: "For the Church understood that the matter is oil blessed by a Bishop." But whether this blessing is not only of precept, but also of the necessity of the Sacrament, is disputed; but Authors most commonly affirm it with St. Thomas, and today the matter is plainly certain. For to the doubt: whether, with the oil of the sick lacking, it is licit to administer, under condition, the Sacrament of Extreme Unction with oil blessed by a simple priest, at least in a case of extreme necessity, for instance when the dying person, destitute of senses, previously gave no sign of sorrow and does not give it: the response was always Negative. Thus the Holy Office on January 13, 1611, before Paul V, and September 14, 1842, before Gregory XVI.⁴ Nevertheless, the blessing of oil can be committed by the Supreme Pontiff to a simple priest, as is clear from the Decree of Clement VIII,⁵ who (indirectly) declared that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction conferred on Latins by Greek priests, with oil blessed by the same priests, is valid.⁶

3. Blessed BY A SPECIAL BLESSING, i.e. in order to Extreme Unction: for that this is required by necessity of the Sacrament the Salmanticenses with Bellarmine affirm probably, against Suarez and others; because, just as by the blessing of chrism the matter is deputed for the Sacrament of Confirmation, so by the blessing of the oil of the sick the matter is deputed to the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.⁷ Hence, in a case of necessity, the Oil of catechumens or Sacred Chrism can indeed be employed UNDER CONDITION. But when the oil of the sick itself has been found, the anointings must be repeated under condition; and the same must be done if by error the priest had employed those oils.

It is doubted: Whether one single drop of oil suffices for administering the Sacrament? - St. Alphonsus responded: "Only speculatively probable is the opinion saying that it suffices to administer this Sacrament with one drop of oil, without spreading it over parts; not, however, practically, because this would not be a true anointing."⁸ Nevertheless, for the value of the Sacrament, it certainly suffices to dip the extreme part of the finger in oil for the individual anointings which are made under the repeated form.

Note. This oil (as also the oil of catechumens and Sacred Chrism), from the precept of Clement VIII⁹ (which according to the more probable opinion obliges under grave sin), must be renewed yearly; and, the renewal having been made, the oil of the preceding year must be burned (namely in the lamp which burns before the Most Holy Sacrament); nor is it licit to use it any longer, except in the case in which the new cannot be had. - But if the new does not suffice, another, not blessed, can be mixed with it, but in lesser quantity, as the Ritual says. Indeed, it is licit to renew the admixture several times, provided that the oil to be mixed in is always in lesser quantity, and true necessity requires this.¹⁰ - See the rest in the Ritual.

1875. II. The PROXIMATE matter is the anointing of certain parts of the body, and at least of the five senses, made by a priest. - From the Roman Ritual, principally five parts of the body ought to be anointed, namely: 1. the eyes (or eyelids) or eyebrows; - 2. the ears (at the lowest part of the ear, so that it can be wiped more easily); - 3. the nostrils, i.e. both nostrils (outside), or the extremity of the summit of the nose, with one anointing; - 4. the mouth, with the lips compressed so that one anointing can be made (if this could not be obtained, it will be enough that the lower or upper lip be anointed); - 5. the hands (outside for priests, inside for others); - 6. the feet (either on the soles, or above the feet, according as custom bears or diocesan Statutes prescribe, or as it can be done more conveniently).¹¹ Although, however (from the common opinion), this anointing of the feet is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, nevertheless it cannot be omitted at the priest's pleasure.¹² - 7. The reins; whose anointing is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, as is clear from the Roman Ritual, where it is read: "But the anointing of the reins in women, for the sake of modesty, is always omitted; and also in men, when the sick person cannot conveniently be moved. But, whether in women or in men, another part of the body ought not to be anointed for the reins." At Rome it is customary to anoint the reins of men from each side, or at least from one side, upon the bone which they call the ischion (hip): for thus the sick person scarcely needs to be moved. Elsewhere, the anointing of the reins is omitted in all indiscriminately; nevertheless the S. R. C. (August 1, 1858) desires that it be introduced where it is not in use.¹³ Meanwhile, the custom of the diocese is to be observed by the priest.

1876. Questions. Q. 1. In what way ought the anointings to be made?

Resp. 1. From the ROMAN RITUAL, each anointing ought to be made with the thumb dipped in the holy oil, in the manner of a cross, adapting the cross and the words in the anointing of each part, always beginning from the right. "But the minister, if he is in Sacred Orders, or the priest himself, after each anointing, should wipe the places anointed with a new little ball of cotton or of something similar, and should place it in a clean vessel, and afterwards carry it to the church, burn it, and cast the ashes into the Sacrarium."

Resp. 2. It is certain that it is not of the necessity of the Sacrament that the anointings be made through the immediate contact of the hand; wherefore in a case of necessity, i.e. when plague is raging, a little rod anointed with oil can be employed, which afterwards is to be burned.¹⁴ - Nor is it of the necessity of the Sacrament that a double anointing be made in double parts; since the tinder of sins is now sufficiently indicated through the anointing of one part: hence, when necessity urges, or if the sick person cannot be turned to another side, it suffices to anoint one eye, one ear, etc. Nor finally is it essential to observe the order of the RITUAL among the anointings of the parts; since the inversion of order does not impede the signification of the Sacrament. - But, outside the case of necessity, these three things are to be observed under grave sin, as is commonly taught.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether the anointing OF THE FIVE SENSES is of the necessity of the Sacrament?

Resp. It is controverted. - The first opinion (speculatively probable), with Merbesius, Tournely, etc., denies it; for from St. James a simple anointing is prescribed, and in Trent mention is made of only one anointing by these words: "this sacred anointing"; whence it seems to suffice that a man be anointed in only one part, so that he may be called anointed. But the more common and safer opinion (to be held under grave sin in practice) affirms that the simple anointings of the five senses are of the necessity of the Sacrament. Thus St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Suarez, Bellarmine, etc., who gather this chiefly from the use of the Church.¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether and in what way are the BLIND, DEAF, MUTILATED to be anointed?

Resp. "If someone is mutilated in some member, the part nearest to that place is to be anointed, with the same form of words." Thus the Roman Ritual. In the same way, those blind from birth, deaf, and mute are to be anointed, namely near the organs of the senses of which they are deprived; for although they have not sinned exteriorly through them, nevertheless they could have sinned through the interior powers to which those correspond, e.g. through desires of seeing, hearing, etc. Thus D. Thomas and the Salmanticenses with the common opinion.¹⁷

1877. The FORM of Extreme Unction is this: Through this holy anointing, and His most loving mercy, may the Lord forgive thee whatever THROUGH SIGHT (if the eyes are anointed, and so concerning the others) thou hast committed. Amen. - It is clear from the Council of Trent and from the Roman Ritual. The indicative form would be invalid, as is taught more truly; for from the words of St. James, And let them pray over him, it ought to be deprecatory.¹⁸

Moreover, to one asking why the form of this Sacrament is deprecatory, the Roman Catechism responds:¹⁹ "This was constituted by the best right; for since this Sacrament is therefore applied so that, besides the spiritual grace which it bestows, it may also restore health to the sick; nevertheless, because it does not always follow that the sick recover from diseases, for that cause the form is completed by prayer, so that from the kindness of God we may obtain that which the power of the Sacrament is not wont to effect by a constant and perpetual order."

As regards the form, LET THE FOLLOWING BE NOTED:

1. To the essence of the Sacrament pertain the words: Through this anointing may the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast committed. - There are indeed some who deny that the word thou hast committed is of the essence; but undeservedly: for this word expresses the remission of sins, which is the principal effect of this Sacrament.

2. The word holy does not pertain to the essence, as all confess; nor these other words: through His most loving mercy, because one who prays God that He forgive already implores His mercy, as the Authors more commonly and more probably teach. Nevertheless, to omit these last words would be a grave sin against the use of the Church, in a grave matter; but neither can the word holy be omitted without fault.

3. The form is not to be ended before the other part of the same sense has been anointed. If the priest fails between the anointings, the anointings already made are not to be repeated, unless a fourth part of an hour has now elapsed; in which case they would have to be repeated under condition.²⁰

4. Once the form has been ended, in the individual anointings, the sick person with those standing by can respond Amen. And it will be excellent if, while the five senses of the body are being anointed, he expressly grieves concerning the faults committed through them.²¹

IT IS ASKED. In what way, WHEN NECESSITY URGES, must the Sacrament be conferred?

Resp. 1. "If someone labors in extremis, and danger is imminent lest he depart before the anointings are finished, let him be anointed quickly, beginning from that place: Through this holy anointing, etc. Then, if he still survives, let the prayers omitted, placed in their own place, be said." Thus the ROMAN RITUAL.

2. If the danger of death is so imminent that all the anointings do not seem able to be carried out in the due manner, let the priest make one anointing, under condition if it is valid, on some sense (yet more advisedly on the forehead, since the nerves of all the senses descend from the head), using this form: Through this holy anointing... may the Lord forgive thee whatever thou hast committed through the senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch; therefore placing first the word thou hast committed, because if it were pronounced at the end, and meanwhile the sick person should die, there is no Sacrament. - If the sick person survives, the anointings, as Lacroix rightly affirms, are to be repeated on the individual senses, and the other omitted prayers are to be added.

3. But if it is doubted whether the sick person still lives, let the priest continue the anointing under condition, saying: If thou livest, through this, etc. "But if the sick person, while he is anointed, departs, let the priest proceed no further, and let him omit the aforesaid prayers." Thus the RITUAL.

1501. Principles. - I. The remote matter is Oil blessed by a Bishop. It is established from the Council of Trent.²

II. The Oil of Extreme Unction, or of the sick, is to be blessed by the diocesan Bishop, or, the See being vacant, by another neighboring Bishop, on the Supper of the Lord, just as Chrism is, and is to be renewed every year, not however for the validity of the Sacrament. Thus from the precept of Clement VIII.³ It is established also from the perpetual practice of the Church, and from the Roman Ritual concerning Extreme Unction.

III. The proximate matter is the anointing of certain parts of the body, which are, at least from the precept of the Church, the five senses. For anointing of the reins is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, but, if circumstances permit, where it is not in custom, it is to be introduced.⁴ The same is commonly asserted concerning the anointing of the feet;⁵ nevertheless the priest cannot omit this anointing at will, and it ought to be made either on the soles or above the feet, according as either custom bears, or diocesan statutes prescribe, or it can be done more conveniently. Therefore anointing is to be made: 1° on the eyes, or on the eyebrows or eyelids; 2° on the ears, i.e. on the lower part of the ear; 3° on the nostrils, i.e. upon the extremity of the summit of the nose, and with only one anointing, because, although strictly speaking a double organ is spoken of, nevertheless with one anointing made on the summit both are anointed at the same time: this can be deduced from rituals which, when they speak of a double organ, do not make mention of the nostrils; 4° on the mouth, the lips being pressed together; but if the sick person did not hear, or could not press the lips together without inconvenience, lest breathing be shut off, it will suffice to anoint either lip; 5° on the hands, above for priests, within, or on the palms, for others.

Notes near n. 1501, matter of Extreme Unction (printed p. 197; right-column note sequence continued).

2 Sess. 14. de Extr. Unct. c. 1. | 3 L. VI. 708. | 4 Collect. p. 322. n. 677. | 5 L. VI. 710 and Rit. Rom.

1502. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether the precept of renewing the Oil obliges under grave?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, because the matter appears sufficiently grave. Nevertheless, if new Oil cannot be had, it is lawful to use the old.

But if perhaps 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 blessed Oil which remains, in lesser quantity however. - Roman Ritual. And this can be done several times, although gradually even a much greater quantity is added than 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.

Quaer. 2° Whether the Oil must necessarily be of olives?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is 1° because by the name of oil, from common usage, Oil of olives is properly understood. 2° It is established besides from the Decree of Eugene IV for the Armenians, in which concerning Extreme Unction it is read: its matter is Oil of olives. 3° It is clear also from the whole tradition and the unanimous consensus of Doctors.

Quaer. 3° Whether this Oil must necessarily be blessed by a Bishop?

Resp. Affirmatively, yet in such a way that from Pontifical delegation it can also be blessed by a simple priest. It is established from various Declarations of Paul V, and most recently of Gregory XVI, on September 14, 1842, and from Benedict XIV.

Quaer. 4° Whether the Oil must be blessed in order to Extreme Unction?

Resp. It is disputed. There is a twofold probable opinion, says St. Alphonsus. Some deny, because the Church requires nothing else except that the Oil be blessed by a Bishop. Hence, they say, the Oil of catechumens and Chrism can validly be employed for making anointings. But others affirm, because, just as Chrism is deputed by its own blessing for Confirmation, so also the Oil of the sick for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. In practice the safer opinion must altogether be followed, except in a case of necessity, in which this Sacrament is to be administered under condition with another blessed Oil, and afterward, if the Oil of the sick can be had, it is to be repeated.

I said: with another blessed Oil; for a threefold holy Oil is distinguished, which in the same ceremony on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord is blessed by the Bishop, namely the Oil of the sick, the Oil of catechumens, and holy Chrism, or Oil mixed with balsam. 1° The Oil of the sick serves only for anointing the sick in danger of death, and for the consecration of bells for the external anointing; for for the internal [anointing] Chrism is employed. 2° The Oil of catechumens is deputed for anointing catechumens before Baptism on the breast and between the shoulders, for consecrating the hands of newly ordained priests, and also for some other consecrations, for example of kings, etc. 3° But Chrism is employed in the Sacrament of Confirmation, in the ceremonies of Baptism after the Sacrament has already been conferred, and for other consecrations, for example of chalice, paten, ciborium, altar, bell internally, etc. - See the Roman Pontifical, especially where it treats of the ceremonies of Thursday in the Supper of the Lord.

Quaer. 5° Whether the anointing of the five senses is of the necessity of the Sacrament?

Resp. The safer affirmative must be held with the more common opinion of Theologians, to which the practice of the Church is consonant; and this practice, excluding a case of necessity, in which under condition one anointing can be employed, more advisedly on the head, under the form described n. 1504. q. 3°, must always be observed. Yet the negative opinion is said by St. Alphonsus to be speculatively probable.

Quaer. 6° Whether a double anointing on double parts is required by the necessity of the Sacrament, for example on each eye, each ear, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, because the whole sense is had in one part. Outside a case of necessity, nevertheless, the double anointing is to be observed under grave.

Quaer. 7° How ought the anointings be made?

Resp. The anointings ought to be made with the right thumb of the priest, who anoints the sick person in the manner of a Cross. Thus from the Roman Ritual. But these things pertain to liceity, not however to validity. But in double members the beginning is from the right, for example from the right eye, etc. - Roman Ritual.

Quaer. 8° Whether by necessity of the Sacrament the order among the anointings of the various senses is to be observed?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is that an inversion of this kind in no way impedes the signification of the Sacrament. Nevertheless they commonly say that such an inversion is gravely illicit, because it is against the use of the Church in a notable matter.

Quaer. 9° Whether Extreme Unction can be conferred on those mute, deaf, and blind from birth?

Resp. Affirmatively; for they can be anointed near the organs of the senses which they lack: for, even if exteriorly they have not sinned through those, nevertheless through the interior powers of the soul, to which those correspond, they could have sinned. Moreover there is question not only of those sins which perhaps were committed through those organs and the corresponding powers.

Quaer. 10° How is a sick person who is deprived of a hand or foot to be anointed?

Resp. The anointing is to be made on the part nearer to the mutilated member. It is established from the Roman Ritual.

Quaer. 11° Whether one drop alone of oil suffices for making the anointings?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably. The reason is that he who anoints with one drop of oil truly anoints; for Oil is diffused more than other liquids. - Thus St. Alphonsus speculatively, and others more commonly. - But some deny; because to anoint is to diffuse Oil through various parts, which is not done by a single drop of Oil. But it is answered that Oil is diffused through various parts when the five senses are anointed, even if the same drop is employed. In practice nevertheless the second opinion, as not improbable, at least extrinsically, is to be followed; but certainly for the value of the Sacrament it suffices to dip the extreme part of the finger in the Oil for the individual special anointings, which are made under the repeated form.

Quaer. 12° Whether in time of plague, or of some contagious disease, it is lawful to perform the sacred anointings by means of a little brush?

Resp. Affirmatively. Collect. p. 322. n. 679.

1503. - The form of Extreme Unction is this: Through this holy anointing and His most loving mercy, may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned through sight (by anointing the eye, and so concerning the others). It is established from Trent, and from the Roman Ritual. The form is to be repeated integrally for the individual parts to be anointed, expressing the member which then is anointed, namely through sight in anointing the eyes, through hearing in the anointing of the ears, etc. But simultaneity between matter and form must be the same as in Baptism. See n. 1211. IV. c). - If the priest fails between the anointings, those which have already been made are not to be repeated by another, unless that other were to begin after a quarter of an hour, in which case they will have to be repeated under condition.

1504. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether for the validity of the Sacrament there is required the expression of each sense, namely, THROUGH SIGHT, THROUGH HEARING, etc.?

Resp. It is disputed. Some deny, because it is not found in the form of the Greeks, which nevertheless is admitted by the Church as valid. Others affirm, because by one anointing and the form corresponding to it there are not remitted the remnants of any sins whatsoever, but only of those which were committed through that sense. Therefore since the matter is doubtful, the expression of the sense is to be employed under grave. - Billuart.

Quaer. 2° What words are essential to the form?

Resp. They are the following: Through this anointing, may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned (with the word expressing the sense, i.e. through sight, etc., at least practically).

Quaer. 3° Whether one form suffices for all the senses, if the individual senses are distinctly expressed and anointed?

Resp. It is disputed. Some affirm, because this form is virtually multiple and equivalent to several particular forms, and thus specially signifies the effect of each special form. But others deny, because since the partial matters, namely the anointings, are distinct, special forms also ought to correspond to the individual ones.

When necessity presses, the more correct form is this: Through this holy anointing, etc., may the Lord pardon you whatever you have sinned through the senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, putting before it the word: you have sinned; because, if you have sinned is uttered at the end, and meanwhile the sick person dies, there is no Sacrament. - But if time remains, the anointings must be repeated under condition with the form proper to each, and the other prayers omitted must be added, as they are prescribed in the Ritual. - "But if, while he is being anointed, the sick person dies, let the presbyter proceed no further and let him omit the aforesaid prayers." - Roman Ritual.

S. Th., Suppl., q. 29, a. 4-9; q. 32, a. 5-7.

692. The remote matter of Extreme Unction is oil blessed by a bishop, as the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent, c. 1, have it.

1. Oil, as is clear from the testimony of James and from tradition and the practice of the Church, and indeed oil of olives, for "oil is not properly said except of olive oil" (a. 4).

St. Thomas shows the fittingness:

"The spiritual healing which is applied at the end must be perfect, because after it no other remains; and gentle, so that hope, which is most necessary to those departing, may not be broken, but fostered. But oil is soothing and penetrative even to the inner parts, and also diffusive. And therefore as to both of the aforesaid things it is fitting matter of this sacrament. And because the liquor of the olive is principally named oil, while other liquors receive the name of oil only from likeness to it, therefore olive oil also must be that which is assumed as the matter of this sacrament" (a. 4).

2. Blessed, of which a threefold reason is assigned:

"The first is because every efficacy of the sacraments descends from Christ. And therefore those sacraments which he himself used have efficacy from his own use; as by the touch of his flesh he conferred regenerating power upon the waters. But he did not use this sacrament, nor any bodily anointing; and therefore in all anointings the sanctification of the matter is required.

"The second is on account of the fullness of grace which is conferred, not only that it may take away fault, but also the remnants of fault and the infirmity of the body.

"The third is from the fact that its bodily effect, namely, bodily healing, is not caused from a natural property of the matter; and therefore it is necessary that this efficacy be given to it through sanctification" (a. 5).

3. By a bishop, so that otherwise the sacrament cannot validly be administered, as the Holy Office says, Jan. 13, 1665, nor in a case of necessity can oil be blessed by a priest, as it has, Sept. 14, 1842. Nevertheless a priest can be specially delegated from apostolic authority to bless oil, even through the mediation of a bishop, as Clement VIII approved for the Greek Church (Aug. 31, 1595), and Benedict XIV confirmed, Const. Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, and now the Code, can. 945.

St. Thomas shows the fittingness, a. 6: The "efficacy of a sacrament is first from Christ, and from him descends to others in order, namely, to the people through the mediation of ministers who dispense the sacraments, and to lower ministers through the mediation of superiors who sanctify the matter. And therefore in all sacraments which need sanctified matter, the first sanctification of the matter is done by a bishop, and the use sometimes by a priest, so that priestly power may be shown to be derived from episcopal power."

4. Indeed, probably, with a special blessing, namely, blessed for this (can. 945).

Yet in a case of necessity, if this special oil is lacking, it is lawful to use another oil, but one blessed by a bishop, such as the oil of catechumens or sacred chrism; but under condition.

693. The proximate matter is the anointing of the body of the sick person made with blessed oil. One anointing on the head or another principal part suffices for the essence of the sacrament and for validity, at least if the words of the form are general and not restricted to one or another bodily sense, as is now certain from can. 947; it is also implied by James, who requires only the presbyters anointing the sick man with oil; and it is clear from history, since in various times and in various regions there has been very great diversity concerning the number or place in the anointings. Yet other anointings, which in diverse rituals are prescribed for diverse Churches, pertain to the integrity of the sacrament and to the fuller signification of the sacramental sign.

1. Many also invoke the response of the Holy Office, Apr. 25, 1906: "in a case of necessity the form suffices: Through this holy anointing may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned. Amen." But the response is directly about the form: the aforesaid suffices, and it is not necessary to add: through the senses, or through sight... enumerating the individual senses; - it is not about the matter. Namely, in a case of necessity in which there is only time for making one anointing, the form stated is declared to be the one to be used. But it was not yet said that one anointing certainly sufficed for validity.

In the Latin Church anointings are made on the exterior senses, the fittingness of which St. Thomas shows, q. 32, a. 5 and 6:

"This sacrament is exhibited by way of healing. But bodily healing need not be made by medicine applied to the whole body, but to those parts where the root of the disease is. And therefore also sacramental anointing must be made only on those parts in which there is the root of spiritual infirmity... The principles of sinning in us are three: the first is directing, namely, the cognitive power; the second is commanding, namely, the appetitive power; the third is executing, namely, the motive power. But all our knowledge takes its origin from sense. And because where the first origin of sin is in us, there medicine must be applied, therefore the places of the five senses are anointed, namely: the eyes on account of sight, the ears on account of hearing, the nostrils on account of smell, the mouth on account of taste, the hands on account of touch, which flourishes especially in the tips of the fingers; and on account of the appetitive power the loins are anointed by some, but the feet are anointed on account of the motive power, of which they are the more principal instrument. And because the first principle of human operation is cognitive, therefore that anointing which is made at the five senses is observed by all, as if of the necessity of the sacrament; but some observe other anointings, while others observe that which is made at the feet, and not that at the loins, because the appetitive and motive powers are secondary principles."

In practice: 1) In a case of necessity let there be made "a single anointing in one sense, or more correctly on the forehead, with the prescribed shorter form" (can. 947); a case of necessity can be either on the part of the sick person because of death altogether imminent, or on the part of the minister because of danger of contagion, or from lack of time because of a multitude of sick persons, or on the part of the sacrament because of danger of profanation.

2. Nevertheless, if it is possible, the other anointings must be added under grave obligation, because they pertain to the integrity of the sacrament, and indeed absolutely, not under condition (Holy Office, Mar. 9, 1917); whence in can. 947 it is added: "with the obligation remaining of supplying the individual anointings when the danger has ceased," that is, when the reason because of which the sacrament was ministered under the shorter rite has ceased.

3. According to recent prescriptions, "the anointing of the loins is always to be omitted; the anointing of the feet can be omitted for any reasonable cause" (can. 947, § 2 and 3).

1. It should be noted that St. Thomas does not affirm that the anointing of the five senses is necessary, but that it is observed as if it were necessary.

4. As to the mutilated, "they must be anointed as near as possible to those parts on which the anointing should have been made; because although they do not have the members, nevertheless they have the powers of the soul, which are owed to those members, at least in their root, and they can sin interiorly through those things which pertain to those parts, although not exteriorly" (q. 32, a. 7). Likewise, if someone lacks the use of a sense, or even has always lacked it, nevertheless he is to be anointed in it.

694. The form is essentially deprecative, as is clear both from the words of James, in which the words: let them pray and prayer, from their native sense and from the context (v. 13 and 16), indicate prayer strictly so called; and from the nature of the sacrament, which seems to be nothing other than the commending of the sick person into the hands of divine mercy (q. 29, a. 8). Hence the form must be deprecative either expressly or at least equivalently, so that if grammatically and materially it is enunciative or imperative, nevertheless from the very tenor of the words, or from added words, or from the circumstances, it is recognized to be formally deprecative as to sense.

At diverse times and in diverse Churches there has been great diversity of forms, and several are found to be enunciative, optative, imperative, or mixed. This is easily understood from the fact that Christ did not wholly determine the sacrament. Hence can. 937: "the sacrament must be conferred through sacred anointings, with oil of olives duly blessed being used, and through the words prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church."

In the Latin Church, according to the Roman Ritual, tit. 5, c. 1, n. 20, the form now to be used is: Through this holy anointing and his most loving mercy may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned through sight (hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch, walking). Amen. Of this St. Thomas says, a. 9:

"It is a fitting form of this sacrament, because a) it touches the sacrament in this, that it says: through this holy anointing; and b) that which works in the sacrament, namely, divine mercy; and c) the effect, namely, the remission of sins."

The shorter form, according to the Ritual, n. 21, to be used in a case of necessity, is: Through this holy anointing may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned. Amen. Here these are certainly essential: may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned, which indicate the principal effect of the sacrament.

695. Observations on the requisites for liceity. - 1. The oil to be used in the Latin Church must be pure, for, says St. Thomas, "it is not necessary that balsam be placed in the matter of this sacrament, because balsam, on account of odor, pertains to goodness of reputation, which henceforth those departing do not need on account of themselves, but they need only the brightness of conscience, which is signified by oil" (a. 4, ad 1). Nor is wine to be mixed with oil, because "wine heals by biting, but oil by soothing; and therefore healing through wine pertains more to penance than to this sacrament" (ad 2). Formerly, however, in certain Churches a little balsam was mixed with the oil; among certain Orientals there is still in force the use of mixing a little water or wine.

2. The oil must be blessed in the same year; yet in a case of necessity old oil can be used. But if it is foreseen that its quantity will be insufficient, unblessed oil can be added, even repeatedly, but always in a lesser quantity (can. 734 and Rit., tit. 5, c. 1, n. 3).

3. The oil to be used must be sufficient for anointing the sick person; for this, however, a great quantity is not required, because oil of itself is diffusive. Yet oil dripped upon the senses does not suffice, but the sick person is to be anointed. For greater security the thumb is to be dipped in oil for the individual senses.

4. The anointing is to be made with the right thumb, in the manner of a cross, on each organ, beginning from the right; the order prescribed in the Ritual being observed; and the priest should take care not to finish the form before he has anointed both paired members (Rit., n. 18). But on the mouth, or on compressed lips, only one anointing is to be made.

5. Outside a case of necessity, the anointings are to be made by the very hand of the minister, with no instrument used (can. 947, § 4); therefore the use of a brush or a little cloth is prohibited.

6. Even in the Latin Church there can be a legitimate special rite of ministering Extreme Unction. Thus in the Order of Preachers, for anointing a sick brother, as is found in the Processional according to the rite of the said Order.

696. Corollary. - As in the other sacraments, three things can be distinguished in Extreme Unction:

1. The sacrament only, or the external sign which signifies and is not signified, and this is the anointing made with oil duly blessed together with the prescribed words of the form.

2. The reality which does not signify but is only signified, namely, grace itself relieving and strengthening the soul and wiping away the remnants of sins, as will be explained in the following Question.

3. Reality and sacrament, which is signified by the external sign and at the same time signifies grace; and this is, says St. Thomas, "a certain interior devotion, which is a spiritual anointing," q. 30, a. 3, ad 3. These words do not seem to be understood of an act of devotion which is elicited by the sick person, but of the passive devotion by which the sick person is devoted by the minister to the kindness of God, or of the consignation by which he is placed back into the hands of divine mercy. Others, however, understand them of relief itself or strengthening, but this seems to be a mere reality which signifies nothing further; others hold for the strengthening of the body, but this is still less true, because that effect is only secondary and therefore derived from the principal one.

I. Extreme Unction is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ the Lord for conferring the salvation of the soul, or even of the body, where it is expedient for the salvation of the soul, upon the sick person in danger of life, through the unction of blessed oil and the prayer of the priest.

II. Extreme Unction is a true sacrament of the New Law, as is established from the definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 1, on Extreme Unction, where it is thus said: "If anyone shall have said that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James the Apostle, but only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human fiction, let him be anathema." - Cf. De Augustinis, Thesis 1, p. 354.

III. The effects of the sacrament of Extreme Unction are: 1°. sanctifying grace with the actual graces proper to the sacrament, which wondrously help toward recreating the sick person and strengthening him against the temptations of the devil; 2°. remission of all sins, both venial and also mortal, and indeed not by accident, but of itself, namely by force of its secondary institution, if the sick person has inculpably remained in the state of sin, provided he has elicited true attrition; 3°. the wiping away of the remains of sin, which are not only the penalties owed to sins but also anxieties of soul, weaknesses, languor toward good, dullness, fear, and other similar things which are contracted from sins; 4°. restoration sometimes of the health of the body, if it is expedient for the salvation of the soul; and consequently they err basely who do not receive this sacrament except when the disease has so prevailed that now they cannot be healed without a miracle. Therefore it can be said that this sacrament is, as it were, the complement of penance, and is referred to it in almost the same way as Confirmation is referred to Baptism. - Cf. Lehmkuhl, nn. 565 and 568.

The sacrament of Extreme Unction must be conferred through sacred unctions, with oil of olives duly blessed being employed, and through the words prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church (Can. 937).

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."

I say. The form of Extreme Unction is contained in these words: "Through this holy unction and his most gracious mercy, may the Lord pardon you whatever you have committed through sight (while the eyes are anointed, and so concerning the others). Amen." It is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 1, on Extreme Unction, and from the Roman Ritual. - Note nevertheless that this form must be repeated integrally at the individual unctions; but when the organs are paired, it must be said only once.

Question 1. Whether for the validity of the sacrament the expression of each sense is required, through sight, through hearing, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, such expression, whether made generally or specifically, is not required: it is lacking in the Greek form, and in the form truly sufficient for the case of necessity approved according to the Holy Office. - Cf. Pesch, loc. cit.

Question 2. What is the sufficient form in the administration of the sacrament in a case of necessity?

Resp. "Through this holy unction may the Lord pardon you whatever you have committed. Amen." Thus the Holy Office, 25 April 1906. The words altogether essential are: "Through this unction may the Lord pardon you whatever you have committed."

Question 3. Whether for validity one form suffices for all the senses, if the individual senses are distinctly expressed and anointed?

Resp. Affirmatively, for integral matter and form are had. Indeed it must be answered affirmatively if the brief form is employed once while the individual senses are anointed.

I. QUESTION I. Is extreme unction a true sacrament? ANSWER. Luther, Calvin, and all the Protestants deny it. On the contrary all Catholics affirm it, and prove it by the testimonies of the Scriptures. Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. Epistle of James, chapter 5. All things are contained in these words which are required for the character of a true sacrament. There is had a sensible thing, namely the unction, which constitutes the matter; the prayer of the priests, which constitutes the form. There is had a divine institution, for the Apostle writes to the universal Churches that which he had received from Christ the Lord. Lastly the effect of the sacrament is set forth, namely the expiation of sins, if there be any, the alleviation of the sick man, and the restoring of strength for resisting the temptations of the demon, and the health of the body, if it be expedient for eternal salvation. The error of the innovators Trent condemned, session 14, canon 1.

The Sacred Office, asked to determine a short form for administering Extreme Unction in necessity, on April 26, 1906, decreed: “In a case of true necessity the following form suffices: By this holy anointing, may the Lord forgive you whatever you have sinned. Amen.” After this decree, some teach that in cases in which this form is employed, the anointing must afterwards be repeated conditionally according to the ritual form if time permits; others teach that this can be done but that no obligation to do the same is present; others maintain that it ought not to be done. Titius, however, a priest who, since he serves a public hospital, not rarely employs the short form, perplexed, inquires what he must do. Hence it is asked:

1. Before the said decree was issued, what did theologians teach about the essential form of Extreme Unction?

2. What did the same decree determine, and with what certainty?

3. What is to be said of the case?

Before the decree of the Holy Office, 26 April, 1906, what did theologians teach about the essential form of Extreme Unction?

The ritual form of Extreme Unction is: “ Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid per visum, etc., deliquisti. Amen.” Theologians taught that in this form the words et suam piissimam misericordiam, sanctum Amen, did not belong to its essence. They did not agree as to whether the mention of the senses in special or at least general terms belonged to its essence. They differed also as to whether a single anointing was sufficient or not for the validity of the sacrament. Hence they taught that in a case of necessity Extreme Unction might be given conditionally with one form such as: Indulgeat tibi Deus quidquid per sensus deliquisti. Others required all the senses to be expressed in the single form. If the sick man survived, St. Alphonsus teaches that the anointing of each sense and the prayers were to be supplied.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, Theol. Moral., lib. vi, n. 710.

2. What did the decree determine and with what certainty?

The Holy Office was asked to determine a single short form for the administration of Extreme Unction to be used in case of death being imminent. It decided that the following form would be sufficient: “ In casu verse necessitatis sufficere formam: Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.” This decree was confirmed next day by Pius X. Hence it determines authentically but not infallibly that in case of necessity it is not necessary to mention the different senses nor even one, and that one anointing under this general form is sufficient for the validity of the sacrament.

3. The case. This decree tells us what is sufficient for the validity of Extreme Unction in casu verae necessitatis, when there is not time to perform the full rite according to the Ritual. If the sick person thus anointed survives, and there is time to go through the Ritual form and prayers, then the case is one not contemplated in the decree. We think, then, that the first opinion mentioned is to be followed in practice, and that if time allows and the state of the sick person permits it, the sacrament should be given according to the form prescribed by the Ritual after this short form has been used. This is the opinion of the Redactor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis when the decree was issued. He says: “ But when the danger has ceased, especially if the sick person was unable to receive the other sacraments safely, the individual anointings upon the individual senses are to be repeated conditionally, under their own particular forms, and all the omitted prayers are to be added at once. This formula accords perfectly with the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual, and as far as the disposition of the recipient of the sacrament may be improved, contributes to obtaining a greater increase of grace.” (A. S. S., XXXIX, 275.)

IN the last issue of the I. E. Record* an interesting question concerning the administration of Extreme Unction was proposed by "Religiosus." In April, 1906, the Holy Office determined a short form for the administration of the sacrament in case of imminent danger of death. What is to be done in a case where this short form has been used, and the sick person does not die immediately? I had expressed the view that in such a case the ordinary ritual form should at once be gone through by the priest. "Religiosus" rejects this opinion, and favours that which he says is held by Father Noldin. He then asks for the editorial solution of the question which, with very courteous expressions to myself, is given on the same side.

The question is important and very practical, and I propose to discuss it at greater length than I have already done elsewhere.

We must, first of all, be clear as to what was done and what was not done by the decree of the Holy Office of April 25, 1906. On that occasion the Holy Office did what it was asked to do. It had been asked to determine one short form to be used in the administration of Extreme Unction in a case where death was imminent. The question had been discussed by theologians for centuries. Opinions were various and numerous. They are briefly summed up for us by O'Kane in his well-known Notes on the Rubrics of the

* See I. E. Record, November, 1915, p. 525.

Roman Ritual. In discussing what belongs to the essential form of the sacrament of Extreme Unction this author says:

" It is agreed that the word sanctam is not essential; and it is probable that the words et suam piissimam misericordiam are not essential. Hence the form expressed thus would be valid: Per istam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti per visum, auditum, etc. It is commonly admitted that the word deliquisti, or some other of the same import, is essential. But it is not equally certain that the expression of the senses is essential. We have seen that when, in case of necessity, a single form is used, it should contain an expression of each sense after the word deliquisti, but many are of opinion that it suffices for the validity to express them in general quidquid deliquisti per sensus. Some go still further, and contend that it is not necessary to express the senses at all, and that the words Indulgeat tibi Deus alone are essential; for the act of anointing, they say, precludes the necessity of using the words per istam unctionem, while the word indulgeat sufficiently implies quidquid deliquisti.”* The Holy Office was asked, not to settle the theoretical question as to what words in the ordinary form of Extreme Unction were essential and what were not essential. It was asked to approve one short form which might be used in case of necessity. The Holy Office granted the

* Notes on the Rubrics, n. 900.

request by decreeing that the form—Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.—would be sufficient in a case of real necessity. On April 26, 1906, Pope Pius X. approved this decree.

There was no question about settling any theoretical opinions as to whether one anointing was valid or not, nor was there any question of settling the doubt as to whether the anointing of the five senses was essential to the validity of the sacrament. The petitioner asked for the solution of a practical difficulty. He knew from the rubrics of the Roman Ritual what was to be done in ordinary cases of imminent danger of death. The rubric says:

"Si quis autem laborat in extremis, et periculum immineat ne decedat antequam finiantur Unctiones, cito ungatur incipiendo ab eo loco Per istam sanctam Unctionem, etc., ut infra: deinde si adhuc supervivat dicantur orationes prætermissæ suo loco positæ." But cases sometimes happen where death seems so near that there is not time to give the separate anointings with their appropriate forms. Hitherto there was no authoritative guidance as to what was to be done in such a case as that. The matter was left to the discussions of theologians. The theologians commonly taught that the minister of the sacrament should apply a single unction with a single form expressing all the senses. They allowed, and expressly taught, that it was not certain that such a single anointing was valid. They taught that it was highly probable that it was valid, and they knew that Benedict XIV. had given them solid grounds for thinking so. But still, as there is question of the validity of a sacrament which may not lawfully be exposed to risk, they taught with St. Alphonsus that whenever in cases of real necessity Extreme Unction had been given with one general form, the separate anointings of the senses should afterwards be supplied with their appropriate forms. As we have seen already, the theologians were not agreed as to what the general form used in a case of real necessity should express. Some said that it should express all the five senses separately; others thought that it would suffice if a word expressing the senses generally were employed; others saw no necessity for either special or general mention of the senses. On this point alone was the Holy Office asked for guidance. Some good priest or bishop was anxious to do all he could in a case of extreme necessity when death was imminent. In such a case of necessity he was justified, as he knew well, in administering the sacraments with a probability of their validity. He was justified then in using one general form for Extreme Unction, with the obligation of supplying the ritual form afterwards, according to the prescriptions of the ritual and the unanimous teaching of theologians. His only doubt was as to what the general form should express. Theologians differed on the point, and so he asked the Holy Office to give its decision. The request was granted, and the Holy Office decided that it was not necessary to express the senses separately, nor even to mention them under some general term, but that in a case of real necessity it was sufficient for the minister to say: Per istam sanctam unctionem indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid deliquisti. Amen.

The Holy Office does not say that this one short form is sufficient for validity. It simply declares that those words are sufficient for the purpose intended, and that no more need be used in order to secure, as far as is possible under the circumstances, the benefits of a probably valid administration of the sacrament. That is all that the decree expressly determines, and I do not see what more can be extracted out of it. To use the expression of Dr. O'Donnell, I am anxious to give the decree its full force, but I do not see what more force it can have. This point is of capital importance in the discussion, and I will try to make it clearer by taking an illustration from the sacrament of Penance. Priests are sometimes called to attend cases where there is imminent danger of death, accompanied by a state of apparent unconsciousness. In such cases they give absolution conditionally, and they know that in the circumstances absolution is probably valid. If the danger of death is imminent a priest will make use of the shortest form of absolution which is compatible with the validity of the sacrament. Theologians are not quite at one as to what words a short form of absolution should necessarily contain. Some think that Absolvo a peccatis tuis is sufficient, while others deny it. Some hold that Ego te absolvo is sufficient, while others say it is not. The common opinion holds that the invocation of the Blessed Trinity does not belong to the necessary essence of the form. We can imagine a priest asking the Holy Office to determine a short form of absolution to be used in case of necessity, and we can imagine the Holy Office acceding to his request. If the Holy Office determined that in cases of real necessity it is sufficient for the priest to say Absolvo te a peccatis tuis, the priest, of course, would be perfectly safe in using only those words. In cases of real necessity he would do his duty by the sick person if he gave absolution with that form without manifest confession. But the supposed decree of the Holy Office would not make the absolution certainly valid. We must say the same, as it seems to me, about the decree of the Holy Office concerning the short general form for the administration of Extreme Unction in cases of true necessity. Even if the ordinary rules of interpretation permitted us to say that by determining the short form, the Holy Office had decided what was sufficient for the validity of the sacrament, we should not be justified in asserting that what was doubtful before the decree is now absolutely certain. Such decrees as that with which we are dealing are not infallible and irreformable utterances of the Holy See. They are practical and safe rules for the cases to which they refer, but, as Santi says, quoting another eminent Roman canonist:

"Responsa hujusmodi non esse infallibilia et irreformabilia. Nam infallibilitas uni Romano Pontifici promissa est; responsa autem hæc non sunt actus Papales, et licet Summus Pontifex eadem probet, tamen semper retinent naturam decisionis Sacræ Congregationis et uti talia Summus Pontifex probat et vulgari jubet.”*

* Prælectiones juris canonici, lib. 1. tit. 31, n. 70.

So that, even if the decree under consideration had determined a short form sufficient for validity, as " Religiosus " implies, that would not settle the question and make the opinion which it favoured certain. There would still be room for the opinion which St. Alphonsus says is probable —that the anointing of the five senses with the separate forms is necessary for the validity of Extreme Unction, and as there is here question of the validity of the sacrament, this safer opinion must be followed in practice. The following argument seems to me not to be destitute of weight.

The Sacred Congregation determined a short form which it declared to be sufficient in case of real necessity, that is, in a case where there is not time to give all the anointings, with their separate forms. If in a particular case the sick person does not die immediately, but continues to live, so that there is a probability of being able to receive the sacrament according to the form of the ritual, the case does not come under the decree. The decree contemplates a case where nothing else can be done. In this case, however, something more can be done. It is quite possible that what would be valid in a case where nothing more could be done, would be invalid in another case where more could be done. This also may be illustrated from the sacrament of Penance. A sick person who sends a message to a priest asking him to come and hear his confession, and before the priest arrives becomes unconscious, is to be absolved absolutely in that state, according to many authors. They gather this from the Roman ritual, and draw the conclusion that such absolution is certainly valid. And yet, under other circumstances, confession made through an interpreter or messenger to an absent priest would certainly be invalid, as theologians conclude from the absolute prohibition of Clement VIII.

Those are the chief reasons why I still think that the decree of the Holy Office, April 25, 1906, does not greatly modify pre-existing opinions on the subject. It seems to me still that if Extreme Unction has been administered with one general form, the ordinary ritual form must be added, because, according to the common teaching of theologians, voiced by St. Alphonsus, administration under one general form is only probably valid. This also seems to me to be prescribed by the new editions of the Roman Ritual, which print the short form approved in 1906, but also retain the rubric quoted above, which prescribes that when only part of the rite has been followed in case of necessity and imminent danger of death, the rest should be afterwards supplied if the sick person continue to live. Such anointing of the five senses would be, according to the present legislation of the Church, as it seems to me, not unlawful, as Dr. O'Donnell says.

I may refer to the article reprinted in my Questions of Moral Theology on the "Repetition of Extreme Unction," to show that I have devoted some attention to the history of Extreme Unction. I know of nothing in the history of the subject which calls for any modification of my views, and so I do not propose to make any change in what I wrote in my "Manual" on the subject.

If we consult the theologians who have written on the point in question after the publication of the decree of 1906, I find I am in very good company. It is true that Father Noldin holds that the decree settles the question as to the validity of one anointing with a single general form, but as to repeating or supplying anything afterwards, he does not say what "Religiosus" makes him say. "Religiosus" quotes him as saying:

" If the patient rally, nothing is to be repeated." The words used by Father Noldin are:

" Si sacramentum in periculo mortis unica unctione collatum fuerit, postea cessante periculo nihil repetendum vel supplendum est." Of course when the danger has ceased, when the sick person is no longer in danger of death, nothing should be repeated or supplied. But, according to the new edition of the Ritual, if the sick person continue to live, though still dangerously ill, the prayers at least should be supplied, and, in my opinion also, the separate anointings, whenever one general form has been used previously.

The editor of the Acta Sanctae Sedis commented on the decree when it was issued, maintaining the opinion which I have defended. He says:

"Sed cessante periculo præsertim si ægrotus alia sacramenta secure suscipere non potuit, sub conditione repetendæ sunt singulæ unctiones in singulis sensibus, sub suis particularibus formis atque addendæ sunt simul omnes orationes omissæ. Quæ norma apprime congruit præscriptionibus Ritualis Romani, et quatenus melior fiat dispositio suscipientis sacramentum, ad majus gratiæ augmentum obtinendum concurrit."* head with the prescribed short form, but the obligation remains of supplying the other anointings if the danger ceases."

Father Vermeersch writes:

" Quodsi peracta summaria ista unctione, tempus superfuerit, consuetæ singulorum sensuum unctiones sub longiore forma peragere non negleget [sacerdos].”†

Tanquerey says:

"Ad integritatem vero Sacramenti eas [unctiones in singulis sensibus] perficiendas esse censemus (sub conditione) quamvis alii aliter sentiant.”‡

Father Ferreres writes: "Sed si tempus post peractam hanc unicam unctionem supersit, videntur fieri posse sensuum unctiones cum forma singulis propria ad pleniorem sacramenti significationem exprimendam." §

These quotations show that I am not singular in my opinion, and the arguments show, I think, that the opinion is well based.

Canon 947 of the New Code of Canon Law lays down the following rule:

"In case of necessity one anointing is sufficient on one sense or better on the fore-

* Acta Sanctae Sedis, 39, 275.

† Periodica, 1911, p. 242.

‡ Brevior Synopsis, n. 1260.

§ Vol. ii. n. 683.

To a question whether the other anointings were to be supplied conditionally or not, the Holy Office answered that they were not to be supplied conditionally.*

* A. A. S., ix., p. 178.