|
Objection 1: It would seem that none but a bishop can confer this
sacrament. For this sacrament consists in an anointing, just as
Confirmation does. Now none but a bishop can confirm. Therefore
only a bishop can confer this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, he who cannot do what is less cannot do what
is greater. Now the use of consecrated matter surpasses the act of
consecrating the matter, since the former is the end of the latter.
Therefore since a priest cannot consecrate the matter, neither can he
use the matter after it has been consecrated.
On the contrary, The minister of this sacrament has to be brought in
to the recipient, as is clear from James 5:14. Now a bishop
cannot go to all the sick people of his diocese. Therefore the bishop
is not the only one who can confer this sacrament.
I answer that, According to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), the
office of perfecting belongs to a bishop, just as it belongs to a
priest to enlighten. Wherefore those sacraments are reserved to a
bishop's dispensation, which place the recipient in a state of
perfection above others. But this is not the case with this
sacrament, for it is given to all. Consequently it can be given by
ordinary priests.
Reply to Objection 1: Confirmation imprints a character, whereby
man is placed in a state of perfection, as stated above (TP,
Question 63, Articles 1, 2,6). But this does not take place
in this sacrament; hence there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 2: Although the use of consecrated matter is of
more importance than the consecration of the matter, from the point of
view of the final cause; nevertheless, from the point of view of
efficient cause, the consecration of the matter is the more important,
since the use of the matter is dependent thereon, as on its active
cause: hence the consecration of the matter demands a higher power than
the use of the matter does.
|
|