Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD
BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages
Our sponsors:
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
We must now consider the sacrament of Extreme Unction: in respect of
which five points have to be considered: (1) Its essentials and
institution; (2) Its effect; (3) Its minister; (4) on whom should it be
conferred and in what parts; (5) Its repetition.
Under the first head there are nine points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Extreme Unction is a sacrament?
(2) Whether it is one sacrament?
(3) Whether this sacrament was instituted by Christ?
(4) Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament?
(5) Whether the oil ought to be consecrated?
(6) Whether the matter of this sacrament should be consecrated by a
bishop?
(7) Whether this sacrament has any form?
(8) Whether the form of this sacrament should take the shape of a
deprecatory phrase?
(9) Whether this is a suitable form for this sacrament?
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Extreme Unction is not a sacrament. For just
as oil is used on sick people, so is it on catechumens. But anointing of
catechumens with oil is not a sacrament. Therefore neither is the Extreme
Unction of the sick with oil.
Objection 2: Further, the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of the
sacraments of the New Law. But there was no figure of Extreme Unction in
the Old Law. Therefore it is not a sacrament of the New Law.
Objection 3: Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii, v) every
sacrament aims at either cleansing, or enlightening, or perfecting. Now
Extreme Unction does not aim at either cleansing, or enlightening, for
this is ascribed to Baptism alone, or perfecting, for according to
Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), this belongs to Confirmation and the
Eucharist. Therefore Extreme Unction is not a sacrament.
On the contrary, The sacraments of the Church supply man's defects
sufficiently with respect to every state of life. Now no other than
Extreme Unction does this for those who are departing from this life.
Therefore it is a sacrament.
Further, the sacraments are neither more nor less than spiritual
remedies. Now Extreme Unction is a spiritual remedy, since it avails for
the remission of sins, according to James 5:15. Therefore it is a
sacrament.
I answer that, Among the visible operations of the Church, some are
sacraments, as Baptism, some are sacramentals, as Exorcism. The
difference between these is that a sacrament is an action of the Church
that reaches to the principal effect intended in the administration of
the sacraments, whereas a sacramental is an action which, though it does
not reach to that effect, is nevertheless directed towards that principal
action. Now the effect intended in the administration of the sacraments
is the healing of the disease of sin: wherefore it is written (@Is. 27:9):
"This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." Since
then Extreme Unction reaches to this effect, as is clear from the words
of James, and is not ordained to any other sacrament as an accessory
thereto, it is evident that Extreme Unction is not a sacramental but a
sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: The oil with which catechumens are anointed does not convey
the remission of sins to them by its unction, for that belongs to
Baptism. It does, however, dispose them to receive Baptism, as stated
above (TP, Question [71], Article [3]). Hence that unction is not a sacrament as Extreme
Unction is.
Reply to Objection 2: This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it
is given to those who are departing from this life. And as, under the Old
Law, it was not yet time to enter into glory, because "the Law brought
nobody [Vulg.: 'nothing'] to perfection" (@Heb. 7:19), so this sacrament
had not to be foreshadowed therein by some corresponding sacrament, as by
a figure of the same kind. Nevertheless it was somewhat foreshadowed
remotely by all the healings related in the Old Testament.
Reply to Objection 3: Dionysius makes no mention of Extreme Unction, as neither
of Penance, nor of Matrimony, because he had no intention to decide any
question about the sacraments, save in so far as they serve to illustrate
the orderly disposition of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, as regards the
ministers, their actions, and the recipients. Nevertheless since Extreme
Unction confers grace and remission of sins, there is no doubt that it
possesses an enlightening and cleansing power, even as Baptism, though
not so copious.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that Extreme Unction is not one sacrament. Because
the oneness of a thing depends on its matter and form, since being and
oneness are derived from the same source. Now the form of this sacrament
is said several times during the one administration, and the matter is
applied to the person anointed in respect of various parts of his body.
Therefore it is not one sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, the unction itself is a sacrament, for it would be
absurd to say that the oil is a sacrament. But there are several
unctions. Therefore there are several sacraments.
Objection 3: Further, one sacrament should be performed by one minister. But
the case might occur that Extreme Unction could not be conferred by one
minister: thus if the priest die after the first unction, another priest
would have to proceed with the others. Therefore Extreme Unction is not
one sacrament.
On the contrary, As immersion is in relation to Baptism, so is unction
to this sacrament. But several immersions are but one sacrament of
Baptism. Therefore the several unctions in Extreme Unction are also one
sacrament.
Further, if it were not one sacrament, then after the first unction, it
would not be essential for the perfection of the sacrament that the
second unction should be performed, since each sacrament has perfect
being of itself. But that is not true. Therefore it is one sacrament.
I answer that, Strictly speaking, a thing is one numerically in three
ways. First, as something indivisible, which is neither actually nor
potentially several---as a point, and unity. Secondly, as something
continuous, which is actually one, but potentially several---as a line.
Thirdly, as something complete, that is composed of several parts---as a
house, which is, in a way, several things, even actually, although those
several things go together towards making one. In this way each sacrament
is said to be one thing, in as much as the many things which are
contained in one sacrament, are united together for the purpose of
signifying or causing one thing, because a sacrament is a sign of the
effect it produces. Hence when one action suffices for a perfect
signification, the unity of the sacrament consists in that action only,
as may be seen in Confirmation. When, however, the signification of the
sacrament can be both in one and in several actions, then the sacrament
can be complete both in one and in several actions, even as Baptism in
one immersion and in three, since washing which is signified in Baptism,
can be completed by one immersion and by several. But when the perfect
signification cannot be expressed except by means of several actions,
then these several actions are essential for the perfection of the
sacrament, as is exemplified in the Eucharist, for the refreshment of the
body which signifies that of the soul, can only be attained by means of
meat and drink. It is the same in this sacrament, because the healing of
the internal wounds cannot be perfectly signified save by the application
of the remedy to the various sources of the wounds. Hence several actions
are essential to the perfection of this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: The unity of a complete whole is not destroyed by reason of
a diversity of matter or form in the parts of that whole. Thus it is
evident that there is neither the same matter nor the same form in the
flesh and in the bones of which one man is composed. In like manner too,
in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and in this sacrament, the diversity
of matter and form does not destroy the unity of the sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: Although those actions are several simply, yet they are
united together in one complete action, viz. the anointing of all the
external senses, whence arises the infernal malady.
Reply to Objection 3: Although, in the Eucharist, if the priest die after the
consecration of the bread, another priest can go on with the consecration
of the wine, beginning where the other left off, or can begin over again
with fresh matter, in Extreme Unction he cannot begin over again, but
should always go on, because to anoint the same part a second time would
produce as much effect as if one were to consecrate a host a second time,
which ought by no means to be done. Nor does the plurality of ministers
destroy the unity of this sacrament, because they only act as
instruments, and the unity of a smith's work is not destroyed by his
using several hammers.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament was not instituted by Christ.
For mention is made in the Gospel of the institution of those sacraments
which Christ instituted, for instance the Eucharist and Baptism. But no
mention is made of Extreme Unction. Therefore it was not instituted by
Christ.
Objection 2: Further, the Master says explicitly (Sent. iv, D, 23) that it was
instituted by the apostles. Therefore Christ did not institute it Himself.
Objection 3: Further, Christ showed forth the sacraments which He instituted,
as in the case of the Eucharist and Baptism. But He did not bestow this
sacrament on anyone. Therefore He did not institute it Himself.
On the contrary, The sacraments of the New Law are more excellent than
those of the Old Law. But all the sacraments of the Old Law were
instituted by God. Therefore much more do all the sacraments of the New
Law owe their institution to Christ Himself.
Further, to make an institution and to remove it belongs to the same
authority. Now the Church, who enjoys the same authority in the
successors of the apostles, as the apostles themselves possessed, cannot
do away with the sacrament of Extreme Unction. Therefore the apostles did
not institute it, but Christ Himself.
I answer that, There are two opinions on this point. For some hold that
this sacrament and Confirmation were not instituted by Christ Himself,
but were left by Him to be instituted by the apostles; for the reason
that these two sacraments, on account of the plenitude of grace conferred
in them, could not be instituted before the mission of the Holy Ghost in
perfect plenitude. Hence they are sacraments of the New Law in such a way
as not to be foreshadowed in the Old Law. But this argument is not very
cogent, since, just as Christ, before His Passion, promised the mission
of the Holy Ghost in His plenitude, so could He institute these
sacraments.
Wherefore others hold that Christ Himself instituted all the sacraments,
but that He Himself published some, which present greater difficulty to
our belief, while he reserved some to be published by the apostles, such
as Extreme Unction and Confirmation. This opinion seems so much the more
probable, as the sacraments belong to the foundation of the Law,
wherefore their institution pertains to the lawgiver; besides, they
derive their efficacy from their institution, which efficacy is given
them by God alone.
Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord did and said many things which are not related in
the Gospel. For the evangelists were intent on handing down chiefly those
things that were necessary for salvation or concerned the building of the
ecclesiastical edifice. Hence they related the institution by Christ of
Baptism, Penance, the Eucharist and orders, rather than of Extreme
Unction and Confirmation, which are not necessary for salvation, nor do
they concern the building or division of the Church. As a matter of fact
however an anointing done by the apostles is mentioned in the Gospel (Mk.
6:13) where it is said that they "anointed the sick with oil."
Reply to Objection 2: The Master says it was instituted by the apostles because
its institution was made known to us by the teaching of the apostles.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ did not show forth any sacrament except such as He
received by way of example: but He could not be a recipient of Penance
and Extreme Unction, since there was no sin in Him: hence He did not show
them forth.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that olive oil is not a suitable matter for this
sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained immediately to the state of
incorruption. Now incorruption is signified by balsam which is contained
in chrism. Therefore chrism would be a more suitable matter for this
sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, this sacrament is a spiritual healing. Now spiritual
healing is signified by the use of wine, as may be gathered from the
parable of the wounded man (@Lk. 10:34). Therefore wine also would be more
suitable a matter for this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, where there is the greater danger, the remedy should be
a common one. But olive oil is not a common remedy, since the olive is
not found in every country. Therefore, since this sacrament is given to
the dying, who are in the greatest danger, it seems that olive oil is not
a suitable matter.
On the contrary, oil is appointed (@James 5:14) as the matter of this
sacrament. Now, properly speaking, oil is none but olive oil. Therefore
this is the matter of this sacrament.
Further, spiritual healing is signified by anointing with oil, as is
evident from Is. 1:6 where we read: " . . . swelling sores: they are not
. . . dressed nor fomented with oil." Therefore the suitable matter for
this sacrament is oil.
I answer that, The spiritual healing, which is given at the end of life,
ought to be complete, since there is no other to follow; it ought also to
be gentle, lest hope, of which the dying stand in utmost need, be
shattered rather than fostered. Now oil has a softening effect, it
penetrates to the very heart of a thing, and spreads over it. Hence, in
both the foregoing respects, it is a suitable matter for this sacrament.
And since oil is, above all, the name of the liquid extract of olives,
for other liquids are only called oil from their likeness to it, it
follows that olive oil is the matter which should be employed in this
sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: The incorruption of glory is something not contained in
this sacrament: and there is no need for the matter to signify such a
thing. Hence it is not necessary for balsam to be included in the matter
of this sacrament, because on account of its fragrance it is indicative
of a good name, which is no longer necessary, for its own sake, to those
who are dying; they need only a clear conscience which is signified by
oil.
Reply to Objection 2: Wine heals by its roughness, oil by its softness, wherefore
healing with wine pertains to Penance rather than to this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: Though olive oil is not produced everywhere, yet it can
easily be transported from one place to another. Moreover this sacrament
is not so necessary that the dying cannot obtain salvation without it.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the oil need not be consecrated. Because there
is a sanctification in the use of this sacrament, through the form of
words. Therefore another sanctification is superfluous if it be applied
to the matter.
Objection 2: Further, the efficacy and signification of the sacraments are in
their very matter. But the signification of the effect of this sacrament,
is suitable to oil on account of its natural properties, and the efficacy
thereof is due to the Divine institution. Therefore its matter does not
need to be sanctified.
Objection 3: Further, Baptism is a more perfect sacrament than Extreme
Unction. But, so far as the essentials of the sacrament are concerned,
the baptismal matter needs no sanctification. Neither therefore does the
matter of Extreme Unction need to be sanctified.
On the contrary, In all other anointings the matter is previously
consecrated. Therefore since this sacrament is an anointing, it requires
consecrated matter.
I answer that, Some hold that mere oil is the matter of this sacrament,
and that the sacrament itself is perfected in the consecration of the oil
by the bishop. But this is clearly false since we proved when treating of
the Eucharist that that sacrament alone consists in the consecration of
the matter (Question [2], Article [1], ad 2).
We must therefore say that this sacrament consists in the anointing
itself, just as Baptism consists in the washing, and that the matter of
this sacrament is consecrated oil. Three reasons may be assigned why
consecrated matter is needed in this sacrament and in certain others. The
first is that all sacramental efficacy is derived from Christ: wherefore
those sacraments which He Himself used, derived their efficacy from His
use of them, even as, by the contact of His flesh, He bestowed the force
of regeneration on the waters. But He did not use this sacrament, nor any
bodily anointing, wherefore in all anointings a consecrated matter is
required. The second reason is that this sacrament confers a plenitude of
grace, so as to take away not only sin but also the remnants of sin, and
bodily sickness. The third reason is that its effect on the body, viz.
bodily health, is not caused by a natural property of the matter.
wherefore it has to derive this efficacy from being consecrated.
Reply to Objection 1: The first consecration sanctifies the matter in itself, but
the second regards rather the use of the matter considered as actually
producing its effect. Hence neither is superfluous, because instruments
also receive their efficacy from the craftsman, both when they are made,
and when they are used for action.
Reply to Objection 2: The efficacy which the sacrament derives from its
institution, is applied to this particular matter when it is consecrated.
The Reply to the Third Objection is gathered from what has been said.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the matter of this sacrament need not be
consecrated by a bishop. Because the consecration of the Eucharistic
elements surpasses that of the matter in this sacrament. But a priest can
consecrate the matter in the Eucharist. Therefore he can do so in this
sacrament also.
Objection 2: Further, in material works the higher art never prepares the
matter for the lower, because the art which applies the matter is more
excellent than that which prepares it, as stated in Phys. ii, text. 25.
Now a bishop is above a priest. Therefore he does not prepare the matter
of a sacrament which is applied by a priest. But a priest dispenses this
sacrament, as we shall state further on (Question [31]). Therefore the
consecration of the matter does not belong to a bishop.
On the contrary, In other anointings also the matter is consecrated by a
bishop. Therefore the same applies to this.
I answer that, The minister of a sacrament produces the effect, not by
his own power, as though he were the principal agent, but by the efficacy
of the sacrament which he dispenses. This efficacy comes, in the first
place, from Christ, and from Him flows down to others in due order, viz.
to the people through the medium of the ministers who dispense the
sacraments, and to the lower ministers through the medium of the higher
ministers who sanctify the matter. Wherefore, in all the sacraments which
require a sanctified matter, the first consecration of the matter is
performed by a bishop, and the application thereof sometimes by a priest,
in order to show that the priest's power is derived from the bishop's,
according to Ps. 132:2: "Like the precious ointment on the head," i.e.
Christ, "that ran down upon the beard of Aaron" first, and then "to the
skirt of his garment."
Reply to Objection 1: The sacrament of the Eucharist consists in the consecration
of the matter and not in its use. Consequently, strictly speaking, that
which is the matter of the sacrament is not a consecrated thing. Hence no
consecration of the matter by a bishop is required beforehand: but the
altar and such like things, even the priest himself, need to be
consecrated, all of which can be done by none but a bishop: so that in
this sacrament also, the priest's power is shown to be derived from the
bishop's, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). The reason why a
priest can perform that consecration of matter which is a sacrament by
itself, and not that which, as a sacramental, is directed to a sacrament
consisting in something used by the faithful, is that in respect of
Christ's true body no order is above the priesthood, whereas, in respect
of Christ's mystic body the episcopate is above the priesthood, as we
shall state further on (Question [40], Article [4]).
Reply to Objection 2: The sacramental matter is not one that is made into
something else by him that uses it, as occurs in the mechanical arts: it
is one, in virtue of which something is done, so that it partakes
somewhat of the nature of an efficient cause, in so far as it is the
instrument of a Divine operation. Hence the matter needs to acquire this
virtue from a higher art or power, since among efficient causes, the more
prior the cause the more perfect it is, whereas in material causes, the
more prior the matter, the more imperfect it is.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament has no form. Because, since the
efficacy of the sacraments is derived from their institution, as also
from their form, the latter must needs be appointed by the institutor of
the sacrament. But there is no account of the form of this sacrament
being instituted either by Christ or by the apostles. Therefore this
sacrament has no form.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is essential to a sacrament is observed
everywhere in the same way. Now nothing is so essential to a sacrament
that has a form, as that very form. Therefore, as in this sacrament there
is no form commonly used by all, since various words are in use, it seems
that this sacrament has no form.
Objection 3: Further, in Baptism no form is needed except for the
sanctification of the matter, because the water is "sanctified by the
word of life so as to wash sin away," as Hugh states (De Sacram. ii). Now
the matter of this sacrament is already consecrated. Therefore it needs
no form of words.
On the contrary, The Master says (Sent. iv, D, 1) that every sacrament
of the New Law consists in things and words. Now the words are the
sacramental form. Therefore, since this is a sacrament of the New Law, it
seems that it has a form.
Further, this is confirmed by the rite of the Universal Church, who uses
certain words in the bestowal of this sacrament.
I answer that, Some have held that no farm is essential to this
sacrament. This, however, seems derogatory to the effect of this
sacrament, since every sacrament signifies its effect. Now the matter is
indifferent as regards its effect, and consequently cannot be determined
to any particular effect save by the form of words. Hence in all the
sacraments of the New Law, since they effect what they signify, there
must needs be things and words. Moreover James (5:14,15) seems to ascribe
the whole force of this sacrament to prayer, which is the form thereof,
as we shall state further on (ad 2: Articles [8],9). Wherefore the foregoing
opinion seems presumptuous and erroneous; and for that reason we should
hold with the common opinion that this, like all the other sacraments,
has a fixed form.
Reply to Objection 1: Holy Writ is proposed to all alike: and so, the form of
Baptism, which can be conferred by all, should be expressed in Holy Writ,
as also the form of the Eucharist, which in regard to that sacrament,
expresses faith which is necessary for salvation. Now the forms of the
other sacraments are not contained in Holy Writ, but were handed down to
the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, as the
Apostle declares (@1 Cor. 11:23): "For I have received of the Lord that
which also I delivered to you," etc.
Reply to Objection 2: The words which are essential to the form, viz. the prayer
of deprecation, are said by all; but other words which pertain to the
well-being thereof, are not said by all.
Reply to Objection 3: The matter of Baptism has a certain sanctification of its
own from the very contact of our Saviour's flesh; but the form of words
sanctifies it so that it has a sanctifying force. In like manner when the
matter of this sacrament has been sanctified in itself, it requires
sanctification in its use, so that it may sanctify actually.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the form of this sacrament should be expressed
by way of assertion rather than of petition. Because all the sacraments
of the New Law have a sure effect. But sureness of effect is not
expressed in the sacramental forms except by way of assertion, as when we
say: "This is My body" or "I baptize thee." Therefore the form of this
sacrament should be expressed as an assertion.
Objection 2: Further, the intention of the minister should be expressed in the
sacramental forms because it is essential to the sacrament. But the
intention of conferring a sacrament is not expressed except by an
assertion. Therefore, etc.
Objection 3: Further, in some churches the following words are said in the
conferring of this sacrament: "I anoint these eyes with consecrated oil
in the name of the Father," etc., which is in keeping with the forms of
the other sacraments. Therefore it seems that such is the form of this
sacrament.
On the contrary, The form of a sacrament must needs be one that is
observed everywhere. Now the words employed according to the custom of
all the churches are not those quoted above, but take the form of a
petition viz.: "Through this holy unction, and His most tender mercy, may
the Lord pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed, by sight," etc.
Therefore the form of this sacrament is expressed as a petition.
Further, this seems to follow from the words of James, who ascribes the
effect of this sacrament to prayer: "The prayer of faith," says he
(5:15), "shall save the sick man." Since then a sacrament takes its
efficacy from its form, it seems that the form of this sacrament is
expressed as a petition.
I answer that, The form of this sacrament is expressed by way of a
petition, as appears from the words of James, and from the custom of the
Roman Church, who uses no other than words of supplication in conferring
this sacrament. Several reasons are assigned for this: first, because the
recipient of this sacrament is deprived of his strength, so that he needs
to be helped by prayers; secondly, because it is given to the dying, who
are on the point of quitting the courts of the Church, and rest in the
hands of God alone, for which reason they are committed to Him by prayer;
thirdly, because the effect of this sacrament is not such that it always
results from the minister's prayer, even when all essentials have been
duly observed, as is the case with the character in Baptism and
Confirmation, transubstantiation in the Eucharist, remission of sin in
Penance (given contrition) which remission is essential to the sacrament
of Penance but not to this sacrament. Consequently the form of this
sacrament cannot be expressed in the indicative mood, as in the
sacraments just mentioned.
Reply to Objection 1: This sacrament, like the others mentioned, considered in
itself, is sure of its effect. yet this effect can be hindered through
the insincerity of the recipient (though by his intention he submit to
the sacrament), so that he receives no effect at all. Hence there is no
parity between this sacrament, and the others wherein some effect always
ensues.
Reply to Objection 2: The intention is sufficiently expressed by the act which is
mentioned in the form, viz.: "By this holy unction."
Reply to Objection 3: These words in the indicative mood, which some are wont to
say before the prayer, are not the sacramental form, but are a
preparation for the form, in so far as they determine the intention of
the minister.
Index [<< | >>]
Supplement [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 9 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the foregoing prayer is not a suitable form
for this sacrament. For in the forms of the other sacraments mention is
made of the matter, for instance in Confirmation, whereas this is not
done in the aforesaid words. Therefore it is not a suitable form.
Objection 2: Further, just as the effect of this sacrament is bestowed on us
by the mercy of God, so are the effects of the other sacraments. But
mention is made in the forms of the other sacraments, not of the Divine
mercy, but rather of the Trinity and of the Passion. Therefore the same
should be done here.
Objection 3: Further, this sacrament is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 23)
to have a twofold effect. But in the foregoing words mention is made of
only one effect, viz. the remission of sins, and not of the healing of
the body to which end James directs the prayer of faith to be made (@James 5:15): "The prayer of faith shall save the sick man." Therefore the above
form is unsuitable.
I answer that, The prayer given above (Article [8]) is a suitable form for this
sacrament, for it includes the sacrament by the words: "By this holy
unction," and that which works in the sacrament, viz. "the mercy of God,"
and the effect, viz. "remission of sins."
Reply to Objection 1: The matter of this sacrament may be understood in the act
of anointing, whereas the matter of Confirmation cannot be implied by the
act expressed in the form. Hence there is no parity.
Reply to Objection 2: The object of mercy is misery: and because this sacrament
is given when we are in a state of misery, i.e. of sickness, mention of
mercy is made in this rather than in other sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: The form should contain mention of the principal effect,
and of that which always ensues in virtue of the sacrament, unless there
be something lacking on the part of the recipient. Now bodily health is
not an effect of this kind, as we shall state further on (Question [30], Articles [1],2), though it does ensue at times, for which reason James ascribes this
effect to the prayer which is the form of this sacrament.