Dist. 23, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 23
Quaestio III. Quae sit materia extremae unctionis.
Tertio quaeritur de huius Sacramenti materia; et dicit Magister1, quod materia huius Sacramenti est «oleum ab episcopo consecratum». Sed primo videtur, quod magis deberet adhiberi aliud elementum quam oleum:
1. Primum, quia hoc Sacramentum est periclitantium et morti appropinquantium, et hi maxime sunt in articulo necessitatis: ergo talibus maxime de elemento communi provideri debet: si ergo aqua communior est, videtur etc.
2. Item, in confirmatione, in qua datur gratia abundans, non solum est elementum olei, sed etiam balsami, quod est pretiosum2: ergo videtur, quod in hoc Sacramento, cum introducat hominem in regnum, quod est pretiosissimum praemium; videtur, quod deberet esse balsamum.
Item, videtur, quod non oporteat esse consecratum:
3. Quia baptismus et eucharistia, in quibus est magna gratia et efficacia, non indigent materia consecrata alia sanctificatione, quam quae fit in Sacramenti forma: ergo pari ratione nec unctio extrema.
4. Item, ad perfectum esse Sacramenti ista duo sufficiunt, scilicet significatio et sanctificatio3, significatio est per elementum, sanctificatio est per verbum; sed haec duo sunt, si quis inungatur de simplici oleo: ergo videtur, quod sit ibi Sacramentum perfectum.
Item, si oportet Sacramentum unctionis fieri de oleo consecrato; quaero: cui competit nomen vel ratio Sacramenti, an oleo, an unctioni? — Quod unctioni, videtur per ipsam denominationem Sacramenti.
5. Sed quod oleo consecrato, videtur, quia oleum est signum, et oleum consecratum «signum est sacrum sacrae rei», quod non tantum habet significationem, sed etiam quoddam genus causalitatis per benedictionem4: ergo videtur, quod habeat in se completam Sacramenti rationem.
6. Item, panis consecratus est Sacramentum, non ipsa manducatio, immo potius est usus5: ergo videtur similiter in proposito, quod oleum consecratum sit Sacramentum, et unctio sit usus: ergo non convenienter nominatur. Quod si non est verum, non videtur hic exigi materia consecrata.
7. Item, videtur, quod nec oporteat esse consecratam ab episcopo, quia plus est consecrare sive corpus Domini conficere, ubi est transsubstantiatio, quam oleum, ubi manet eadem usia6; sed simplex sacerdos potest primum: ergo et secundum.
Iuxta hoc est quaestio: quare debet esse oleum; et quare simplex, non mixtum; et quare consecratum ab episcopo; et si illa consecratio faciat, oleum consecratum esse Sacramentum.
Conclusio
Extremae unctionis materia est oleum consecratum ab episcopo.
Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod aliqui dicere voluerunt, quod materia in hoc Sacramento est oleum, sed consecratio episcopalis superveniens facit esse Sacramentum; sed inunctio consequens est Sacramenti usus sive dispensatio.
Sed quoniam istud repugnat nominationi Sacramenti et etiam communi opinioni; ideo melius dicatur, quod sicut aqua in baptismo est elementum, sic in confirmatione chrisma et in unctione oleum consecratum ab episcopo.
Ratio autem sumi potest a parte efficientis sive instituentis, et etiam a parte finis. A parte instituentis: quoniam enim Christus per semetipsum instituit, qui per semetipsum potuit sanctificare, baptismum et eucharistiam; ideo non est alia consecratio praeparans necessaria, sed solum ad solemnitatem facit. Sed hoc Sacramentum Spiritus sanctus instituit per Apostolos, qui non poterant sanctificare nisi per Deum; ideo materia est non simplex elementum, sed oleum per verbum et invocationem sancti Spiritus consecratum, et hoc per verbum episcoporum, qui sunt successores Apostolorum; ut, sicut Spiritus sanctus instituit per Apostolos, sic etiam nunc consecret per episcopos7. — A parte finis sumitur ratio: quoniam hic datur gratia sanans languores spirituales, et datur gratia ordinans ad sanitatem perfectam, quae quidem est gloriae; ideo debet significari per oleum, quod est curativum, ratione curationis, et per oleum consecratum, ratione ordinationis ad supereminentem curationem, et per oleum simplex, non mixtum, quia ad ingressum in gloriam requiritur et sufficit bona conscientia8. — His visis, facile est solvere ad obiecta.
1. Ad illud enim quod obiicitur de communitate materiae, dicendum, quod istud non est Sacramentum necessitatis; et praeterea, modicum de elemento sufficit, et hoc potest ubique locorum haberi, et ideo non est periculum aliquod. Praeterea, evitatio periculi non debet praeiudicare dignitati et congruitati Sacramenti.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod deberet misceri cum balsamo, sicut in confirmatione; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia in confirmatione datur gratia ad pugnandum in vita, per quam oportet ambulare non solum secundum placentiam ad Deum, verum etiam ad proximum; sed in unctione datur gratia ad resistendum diabolo, ne possit detinere, et ad hoc non est necessaria fama, sed bona conscientia; et quia balsamum aromatizans significat bonam famam9, et oleum nitens bonam conscientiam: ideo etc.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eucharistia non indiget alia consecratione; dicendum quod non, est simile tum ex parte instituentis, tum ex parte finis, ut visum est.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in oleo non consecrato, si fiat unctio, est significatio et sanctificatio; dicendum, quod falsum est. Primo enim deficit significatio, quae non tantum exigit repraesentationem, sed etiam institutionem; sic autem institutum est fieri. Secundo vero deficit sanctificatio, quia non habet verbum efficaciam, nisi habeat competens elementum10.
5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod oleum consecratum est Sacramentum; dicendum, quod proprie loquendo, non est Sacramentum, sed ad Sacramentum ordinatum. Et ratio huius est, quia non habet nec perfectam significationem nec sanctificationem, quousque applicetur infirmo, et superveniat sacerdotalis oratio; tunc enim significatur gratia intus ungens, et tunc est primo praesens11, non ante: et ideo non est simile de corpore Domini, ubi in prima sanctificatione fit conversio, et post non additur ulterior sanctificatio, quae novam introducat virtutem.
7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sacerdotes possunt corpus Domini conficere, et ita oleum consecrare; dicendum, quod non valet: quia tanta est potestas in ministris Ecclesiae, quantam distribuit Dominus membris; nec oportuit, potestatem consecrandi oleum ita communicari sacerdotibus, sicut conficiendi corpus Christi, quia unus episcopus faciliter toti provinciae potest unctionis oleum consecrare; sed non potest quotidie in singulis parochiis Missam cantare, sicut decet, cum ille sit panis quotidianus12 et communis omnibus: et sic patet illud.
I. Oleum olivae per episcopum benedictum esse materiam remotam huius Sacramenti, docetur in Decreto pro Armenis toties citato. Controversia autem est, utrum illa benedictio episcopi non tantum sit de necessitate praecepti, sed omnino de essentia Sacramenti. Certa tamen videtur esse sententia, quod ex concessione Summi Pontificis etiam a presbyteris praevia benedictio valide dari possit.
De hac 3. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; Suppl. q. 29. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.
II. Quoad 4. quaestionem de forma praenotandum est, quod ab antiquo diversae formae in hoc Sacramento administrando a diversis Ecclesiis adhibebantur, pleraeque quidem modo tantum deprecativo (ut forma nunc in Ecclesia Romana usitata), sed nonnullae modo tantum indicativo, aliae partim indicativo, partim deprecativo. De validitate Sacramenti cum forma tantum indicativa (Inungo te etc.) administrati controvertitur; negativae sententiae favent S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar. (Durandus nihil determinat), affirmativae vero B. Albert., Richard. a Med. et recentiores. Omnes autem antiqui opinionem primo loco hic relatam reprobant. B. Albert. testatur de «tota Ecclesia Alemanniae», quod «antiquissimi libri in illis terris habent indicativam orationem pro forma, et postea subiungitur oratio. Et haec sunt verba scripta in libris antiquissimis, quos prae antiquitate vix legere valebam: Ungo hos oculos oleo sanctificato in nomine etc.; et postea sequitur: Per istam sanctissimam unctionem et suam piissimam» etc. Consentit autem idem communi sententiae, quod forma indicativa non sit de necessitate Sacramenti, sed de bene esse, ut dicit. Pro eadem sententia affertur etiam S. Bonav. a Maurinis (nota 912. ad S. Gregorii librum Sacrament., ed. Migne col. 521.); sed cum ibi agatur de forma mixta, ex ipsis verbis auctoris (conclusio 2. et ad 3.) concludendum est, eum consentire potius positioni S. Thomae.
De 4. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4; Suppl. q. 29. a. 7-9. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 3. n. 7.
---
Question III. What the matter of extreme unction is.
Thirdly it is asked concerning the matter of this Sacrament; and the Master says1 that the matter of this Sacrament is «oil consecrated by a bishop». But at first it seems that some other element rather than oil ought to be employed:
1. First, because this Sacrament is [the Sacrament] of those in peril and drawing near to death, and these are most of all in the article of necessity: therefore for such people provision ought most of all to be made from a common element: if therefore water is more common, it seems [it should be used], etc.
2. Likewise, in confirmation, in which abundant grace is given, there is not only the element of oil, but also of balsam, which is precious2: therefore it seems that in this Sacrament, since it introduces a man into the kingdom, which is a most precious reward, it seems that it ought to be balsam.
Likewise, it seems that it ought not to be consecrated:
3. Because baptism and the eucharist, in which there is great grace and efficacy, do not need matter consecrated by another sanctification than that which is done in the form of the Sacrament: therefore by parity of reasoning neither does extreme unction.
4. Likewise, for the perfect being of a Sacrament these two suffice, namely signification and sanctification3: signification is through the element, sanctification is through the word; but these two are present, if someone is anointed with simple oil: therefore it seems that there is there a perfect Sacrament.
Likewise, if the Sacrament of unction must be made from consecrated oil, I ask: to which does the name or account of Sacrament belong, to the oil or to the unction? — That [it belongs] to the unction, seems [to follow] from the very denomination of the Sacrament.
5. But that [it belongs] to the consecrated oil, seems [to follow], because oil is a sign, and consecrated oil is «a sacred sign of a sacred thing», which not only has signification, but also a certain kind of causality through benediction4: therefore it seems that it has in itself the complete account of a Sacrament.
6. Likewise, consecrated bread is the Sacrament, not the eating itself, which rather is the use5: therefore it seems likewise in the case at hand that consecrated oil is the Sacrament, and the unction is the use: therefore it is not fittingly named. But if this is not true, it does not seem that consecrated matter is here required.
7. Likewise, it seems that it need not be consecrated by a bishop, because to consecrate — that is, to confect the body of the Lord, where there is transubstantiation — is a greater thing than [to consecrate] oil, where the same substance remains6; but a simple priest can [do] the first: therefore also the second.
Bound up with this is the question: why it must be oil; and why simple, not mixed; and why consecrated by a bishop; and whether that consecration makes the consecrated oil to be the Sacrament.
Conclusion
The matter of extreme unction is oil consecrated by a bishop.
I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that some have wished to say that the matter in this Sacrament is oil, but the episcopal consecration supervening makes it to be the Sacrament; while the anointing that follows is the use or dispensation of the Sacrament.
But since this is repugnant to the naming of the Sacrament and also to common opinion, it is therefore better to say that, just as water in baptism is the element, so in confirmation chrism, and in unction oil consecrated by a bishop [is the matter].
Now the reason can be taken from the side of the efficient cause, that is, of the institutor, and also from the side of the end. From the side of the institutor: for since Christ instituted baptism and the eucharist through Himself — He who through Himself was able to sanctify — therefore there is no other preparatory consecration necessary, but it only makes for solemnity. But this Sacrament the Holy Spirit instituted through the Apostles, who could not sanctify except through God; therefore the matter is not a simple element, but oil consecrated through the word and invocation of the Holy Spirit, and this through the word of bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles; so that, just as the Holy Spirit instituted through the Apostles, so also now He may consecrate through bishops7. — From the side of the end the reason is taken: for here is given grace healing spiritual languors, and grace is given ordering [one] to perfect health, which indeed is [the health] of glory; therefore it ought to be signified through oil, which is curative, by reason of the curing, and through consecrated oil, by reason of the ordering to a supereminent curing, and through simple oil, not mixed, because for entrance into glory a good conscience is required and suffices8. — These things being seen, it is easy to resolve [the objections].
1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the commonness of the matter, it must be said that this is not a Sacrament of necessity; and besides, a small amount of the element suffices, and this can be had everywhere, and therefore there is no danger. Besides, the avoidance of danger ought not to prejudice the dignity and fittingness of the Sacrament.
2. To that which is objected, that it ought to be mixed with balsam, as in confirmation: it must be said that it is not similar, because in confirmation grace is given for fighting in life, by which one must walk not only according to what is pleasing to God, but also toward one's neighbor; whereas in unction grace is given for resisting the devil, lest he be able to detain [the soul], and for this a [good] reputation is not necessary, but a good conscience; and because aromatic balsam signifies a good reputation9, and shining oil a good conscience: therefore etc.
3. To that which is objected, that the eucharist does not need another consecration: it must be said that it is not similar, both from the side of the institutor and from the side of the end, as has been seen.
4. To that which is objected, that in unconsecrated oil, if unction be done, there is signification and sanctification: it must be said that this is false. For first signification is lacking, which requires not only representation, but also institution; but it has been instituted to be done thus. Secondly sanctification is lacking, because the word does not have efficacy unless it have a fitting element10.
5. 6. To that which is objected, that consecrated oil is the Sacrament: it must be said that, properly speaking, it is not the Sacrament, but ordered to the Sacrament. And the reason for this is that it has neither perfect signification nor sanctification, until it be applied to the sick person, and the priestly prayer supervene; for then is signified the grace inwardly anointing, and then it is first present11, not before: and therefore it is not similar to the body of the Lord, where in the first sanctification the conversion takes place, and afterward no further sanctification is added that would introduce a new power.
7. To that which is objected, that priests can confect the body of the Lord, and so consecrate oil: it must be said that it does not hold, because the power in the ministers of the Church is as great as the Lord distributes to the members; nor was it fitting that the power of consecrating oil be communicated to priests in the same way as [the power] of confecting the body of Christ, because one bishop can readily consecrate the oil of unction for a whole province; but he cannot daily sing Mass in the individual parishes, as is fitting, since that [body] is the daily12 bread, common to all: and thus that [objection] is clear.
I. That olive oil blessed by a bishop is the remote matter of this Sacrament is taught in the Decree for the Armenians so often cited. But there is a controversy whether that blessing of the bishop is not only of the necessity of the precept, but altogether of the essence of the Sacrament. Nevertheless it seems to be a certain opinion that, by concession of the Supreme Pontiff, a previous blessing can be validly given even by presbyters.
On this 3rd question: S. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; Suppl. q. 29, a. 4. — B. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 3. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 2.
II. As to the 4th question, concerning the form, it must be premised that from antiquity diverse forms in administering this Sacrament were employed by diverse Churches, most indeed in the merely deprecative mode (as the form now customary in the Roman Church), but some in the merely indicative mode, others partly indicative, partly deprecative. Concerning the validity of the Sacrament administered with a merely indicative form (I anoint thee, etc.) there is dispute; the negative opinion is favored by S. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise (Durandus determines nothing), but the affirmative by B. Albert, Richard of Mediavilla, and the more recent [authors]. All the ancients, however, reprove the opinion related here in the first place. B. Albert testifies concerning «the whole Church of Germany» that «the most ancient books in those lands have the indicative prayer for the form, and afterward a prayer is subjoined. And these are the words written in the most ancient books, which on account of their antiquity I could scarcely read: I anoint these eyes with sanctified oil in the name etc.; and afterward there follows: Through this most holy unction and His most loving [mercy]» etc. But the same [author] agrees with the common opinion that the indicative form is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, but of its well-being, as he says. For the same opinion S. Bonaventure is also adduced by the Maurists (note 912 on S. Gregory's book on the Sacraments, ed. Migne col. 521); but since the matter there treated is of the mixed form, from the very words of the author (conclusion 2 and reply to 3) it must be concluded that he agrees rather with the position of S. Thomas.
On the 4th question: S. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 4; Suppl. q. 29, a. 7-9. — B. Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 3, n. 7.
---
- 1Hic in lit. c. 1.Here in the [Master's] text, c. 1.
- 2Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 2, ubi etiam de seq. arg.Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2, and above d. 7, a. 1, q. 2, where [there is] also [something] about the following argument.
- 3Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 4.See above the Master's text, d. 1, c. 4.
- 4Duplex definitio Sacramenti supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 2. et 4, proposita in his respicitur. Cfr. etiam ibid. Comment. p. 1. q. 2. ad 5.The twofold definition of a Sacrament set out above [in] the Master's text, d. 1, c. 2 and 4, is what is referred to in these [words]. Cf. also there [in the] Commentary, p. 1, q. 2, reply to 5.
- 5Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 2.See above d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, foundation 2.
- 6Graece οὐσία i. e. substantia sive essentia.In Greek οὐσία, that is, substance or essence.
- 7Cfr. quaest. praeced. et d. 7. a. 1. q. 2. — Superius pro Sed hoc Sacramentum codd. communiter legunt Sed in hoc Sacramento (plures codd. Sacramentum; in cod. A secunda manus substituit nostram lectionem, quae est etiam lectio edd.). Subinde pro per Deum codd. RST per Christum.Cf. the preceding question and d. 7, a. 1, q. 2. — Above, for Sed hoc Sacramentum the codices commonly read Sed in hoc Sacramento (several codices Sacramentum; in codex A a second hand substituted our reading, which is also the reading of the editions). Then, for per Deum, codices RST [read] per Christum.
- 8Quae per oleum significatur, ut insinuatur a Magistro hic in lit. c. 2. — Innocent. III. in C. Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem (1.), X. de Sacra unctione (lib. I. tit. 15. § 2.), ait: Per oleum enim nitor conscientiae designatur, iuxta quod legitur: Prudentes virgines acceperunt oleum in vasis suis cum lampadibus [Matth. 25, 4.]... De nitore conscientiae dicit Apostolus [II. Cor. 1, 12.]: Gloria nostra haec est testimonium conscientiae nostrae; nam omnis gloria filiae regis ab intus [Ps. 44, 14.]. — Mox pro solvere codd. RST respondere.[The good conscience] which is signified through oil, as is intimated by the Master here in the text, c. 2. — Innocent III, in the [decretal] Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem (1), X, on holy unction (bk. I, tit. 15, § 2), says: For through oil the brightness of conscience is designated, according to what is read: The prudent virgins took oil in their vessels with their lamps [Matt. 25, 4]... Of the brightness of conscience the Apostle says [II Cor. 1, 12]: Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience; for all the glory of the king's daughter is from within [Ps. 44, 14]. — Presently, for solvere codices RST [read] respondere.
- 9Innocent. III., loc. cit.: Per balsamum odor bonae famae exprimitur, propter quod dicitur [Eccli. 24, 20.]: Sicut balsamum aromatizans odorem dedi. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Superius post sed in codd. RST addunt extrema.Innocent III, loc. cit.: Through balsam the odor of good reputation is expressed, on account of which it is said [Ecclus. 24, 20]: Like aromatic balsam I gave forth an odor. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2. — Above, after sed in codices RST add extrema.
- 10Vide supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. ad 5.See above d. 1, p. 1, q. 2, reply to 5.
- 11Vat. primo Sacramentum, et, quae etiam post pauca pro ulterior [codd. B H K interior] cum ed. exhibet uberior interior. Superius pro ordinatum codd. G H V aa ordinatur. — De ipsa solut. cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. I.The Vatican [edition reads] primo Sacramentum, and, [as] also shortly after, for ulterior [codices B H K interior] with the edition it exhibits uberior interior. Above, for ordinatum codices G H V aa [read] ordinatur. — On the solution itself cf. above d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. I.
- 12Luc. 11, 3: Panem nostrum quotidianum etc.Luke 11, 3: Our daily bread etc. ---