|
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.
|
|