|
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament ought not to be
repeated. For the anointing of a man is of greater import than the
anointing of a stone. But the anointing of an altar is not repeated,
unless the altar be shattered. Neither, therefore, should Extreme
Unction, whereby a man is anointed, be repeated.
Objection 2: Further, nothing comes after what is extreme. But
this unction is called extreme. Therefore it should not be repeated.
On the contrary, This sacrament is a spiritual healing applied under
the form of a bodily cure. But a bodily cure is repeated. Therefore
this sacrament also can be repeated.
I answer that, No sacramental or sacrament, having an effect that
lasts for ever, can be repeated, because this would imply that the
sacrament had failed to produce that effect; and this would be
derogatory to the sacrament. On the other hand a sacrament whose
effect does not last for ever, can be repeated without disparaging that
sacrament, in order that the lost effect may be recovered. And since
health of body and soul, which is the effect of this sacrament, can be
lost after it has been effected, it follows that this sacrament can,
without disparagement thereto, be repeated.
Reply to Objection 1: The stone is anointed in order that the altar
may be consecrated, and the stone remains consecrated, as long as the
altar remains, hence it cannot be anointed again. But a man is not
consecrated by being anointed, since it does not imprint a character on
him. Hence there is no comparison.
Reply to Objection 2: What men think to be extreme is not always
extreme in reality. It is thus that this sacrament is called Extreme
Unction, because it ought not to be given save to those whose death
men think to be nigh.
|
|