|
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.
|
|