Part I: Extreme Unction

Introduction

Extreme Unction, says the Tridentine Council, was regarded by the Fathers as the completion of Penance and of the whole Christian life.¹

Outwardly the intimate relation existing between the two Sacraments of Extreme Unction and Penance is evidenced by the fact that the same Council deals with Extreme Unction in connection with Penance, as it deals with Confirmation in connection with Baptism.²

Aside from the decrees of Trent, the dogmatic teaching of the Church on Extreme Unction is stated most fully in the famous Decretum pro Armenis, issued by Pope Eugene IV, in 1439.

The name Extrema Unctio became a technical term in the West towards the end of the twelfth century. The adjective “Extreme” does not mean that the anointment given in this Sacrament is the last, or that the subject must die after its reception. This is a superstitious belief which has often led to neglect and procrastination. How unfounded it is appears from the fact that theologians count the restoration of bodily health among the effects of Extreme Unction, though, of course, this is a secondary effect, conditioned upon the state of the patient’s soul.

Extreme Unction is called the last anointment in a purely liturgical sense, because it is preceded by the anointments conferred in Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders.

Extreme Unction can be administered only to persons who are dangerously ill, and hence is also called “the Sacrament of the departing” (sacramentum exeuntium).³ Dr. Toner thinks that, “having regard to the conditions prevailing at the time when the name was introduced, it is much more probable that it was intended originally to mean ‘the unction of those in extremis,’ i.e., the dying.”⁴ This theory derives probability from the fact that the corresponding name, sacramentum exeuntium, became current during the same period.

In the East the technical term for Extreme Unction is “the holy oil,” or “prayer-oil” — from the Greek words for prayer and for oil. The latter name is very appropriate, as prayer and oil constitute the external sign of the Sacrament.⁵ In Milan, at the time of St. Ambrose,⁶ it was known as “the imposition of hands upon the infirm.”⁷

Extreme Unction is a Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ, in which the sick, who are seriously ill, by the anointing with holy oil and by the prayer of the priest, receive the grace of God for the good of their souls, and often also of their bodies.

The correctness of this definition will be shown in the process of our treatise, which we shall divide according to the scheme we have adopted for Baptism and Confirmation.

Chapter 1: Extreme Unction a True Sacrament

To prove the sacramental character of Extreme Unction we must show that it is a visible sign communicating invisible grace, instituted by Jesus Christ for the salvation of souls. The argument rests mainly on the Epistle of St. James and on ecclesiastical Tradition.

Section 1: Divine Institution

1. Protestant Vagaries vs. the Teaching of the Church. It is doubtful whether the Cathari, the Waldenses, the Wiclifites, and the Hussites merely rejected the Sacrament of Extreme Unction or formally denied it. Luther and the rest of the so-called Protestant Reformers openly denied the sacramental character of the rite.

a) Luther could not consistently uphold Extreme Unction after repudiating the Epistle of St. James, upon which the Church bases her teaching with regard to this Sacrament, and which he contemptuously called “a letter of straw,” “unworthy of the Apostolic spirit.” Calvin went so far as to denounce Extreme Unction as “fictitious” and a piece of “histrionic hypocrisy.”⁸ The symbols of the Lutheran and Calvinistic sects affirm that while Extreme Unction may have been a Sacrament in the early Church, it was a merely temporary institution, which lost its efficacy when the charismatic gift of healing ceased. Present-day Protestants generally adhere to this theory and regard the Jacobean rite either as identical with the ancient gratia curationum, now extinct, or as a sort of natural remedy. Among the Anglicans, however, there has recently been a revival of Catholic teaching and practice.⁹

b) The Council of Trent defines the sacramental character of Extreme Unction against the Protestant “Reformers” as follows: “If anyone saith that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord, and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but is only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human figment, let him be anathema.”¹⁰

The Council explains its meaning more fully in Chapter I, De Extrema Unctione, of its XIVth Session: “This sacred unction of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as truly and properly a Sacrament of the New Law, insinuated indeed in Mark [VI, 13], but recommended and promulgated to the faithful by James the Apostle and cousin of our Lord. ‘Is any man,’ he saith, ‘sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.’ [Jas. V, 14 sq.] In which words, as the Church has learned from Apostolic tradition, received from hand to hand, he teaches the matter, the form, the proper minister, and the effect of this salutary Sacrament.”¹¹

Some of the older Scholastics, notably Peter Lombard, St. Bonaventure, and Hugh of St. Victor, held, in opposition to the more common view, that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction was instituted by the Apostles after the descent of the Holy Ghost and by His inspiration. This thesis can now no longer be maintained in the face of the Tridentine declaration that the Sacrament was “instituted” by Christ Himself and “recommended and promulgated to the faithful” by St. James.

2. Proof from Revelation. We have already quoted the Scriptural locus classicus for our dogma as reproduced in the Tridentine definition: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

Here we have all the essential characteristics of a Sacrament.

a) There is, first, an external sign or rite, consisting of matter and form. The “anointment with oil”¹² is a visible act, like the ablution performed in the administration of Baptism. The prayer pronounced by the priest over the sick man (super eum, not pro eo), and which St. James calls “prayer of faith,”¹³ manifestly constitutes the form.

To this external sign or rite the Apostle ascribes internal grace: “salvation” (salvabit), “upraising” (alleviabit), and especially “forgiveness of sins” (si in peccatis sit, remittentur ei). This effect, which is produced ex opere operato in the properly disposed recipient, cannot possibly be confounded with the charismatic, nor yet with the natural cures reported elsewhere in the New Testament.¹⁴

Finally, the divine institution of this prayer-unction is at least intimated by St. James. For in the first place he mentions it along with a number of positive precepts. Secondly, he says that the act is performed “in the name of the Lord” (in nomine Domini), that is to say, by command or through the power of the Lord. If Extreme Unction is administered by command of the Lord, it must be directly instituted by Him; if by His power, the same conclusion is inevitable, for no one but God can cause a visible sign to effect forgiveness of sins.¹⁵

b) The Tridentine Fathers observe that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is “insinuated” in the Gospel of St. Mark; which raises the question whether St. Mark really knew this Sacrament. The passage (Mark VI, 13): “[The Apostles] anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them,” is understood of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction by St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Ambrosius Catharinus, Maldonatus, Berti, Sainte-Beuve, and other illustrious theologians. Bellarmine¹⁶ and Suarez,¹⁷ however, and with them the great majority of Catholic divines, are opposed to this interpretation for the following reasons:

(1) The anointment of which St. Mark speaks affected only the body. The sick who were anointed were restored to health. The rite described by St. James, on the other hand, results in forgiveness of sins — a distinctly spiritual effect.

(2) The anointment recorded by St. Mark was administered not only to the sick, but to the lame and blind, not only to Christians, but to unbelieving Jews and gentiles; whereas the “sacred unction” of St. James was strictly limited to the sick among the faithful.

(3) The power of healing described by St. Mark was clearly a charismatic gift, for our Divine Saviour had shortly before commanded His Apostles to “heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils,” adding: “Freely have you received, freely give.”¹⁸ Now since the charismata are not a permanent institution, but may cease temporarily or altogether, the anointing of the sick according to St. James belongs to an altogether different category, for it postulates “the priesthood” as its dispenser and consequently must last as long as the priesthood lasts, namely, to the end of time.¹⁹

But how, in view of these facts, could the Council of Trent say that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction is “insinuated” by St. Mark? Because the anointment which St. Mark describes was a type of the sacred unction promulgated by St. James. “Insinuatum,” in the context of the Tridentine decree, as Berti notes, does not mean “introductum,” but “praefiguratum.”²⁰

3. Proof from Tradition. Even if there were no express Patristic testimony available to show the existence of Extreme Unction during the first five centuries of the Church, the fact could be established by an argument from prescription.

a) The Sacrament of Extreme Unction is to-day known and administered throughout the world, in the Greek schismatic as well as in the Latin Church.²¹ It was known to the Council of Constantinople of 1672 and to the Greek Emperor Michael Palaeologus in 1274.²² It was recommended to the faithful by the councils of Worms (868), Mayence (847), Aix-la-Chapelle (836), and Châlons (813).²³ This brings us to the schism of Photius (869).

The liturgical books take us still farther back. Thus the Sacramentary of Pope St. Gregory the Great²⁴ and the newly discovered Euchologium of Serapion of Thmuis (d. about 362)²⁵ contain the rite of administering and blessing the holy oils. The Nestorians and Armenians, who no longer have the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, knew it in former times, as their ancient rituals testify.²⁶ Since these sects cut loose from the Roman Church as early as the fifth century, the Sacrament of Extreme Unction must have formed part and parcel of the Apostolic Tradition. All the facts that have so far come to light point towards the time when the Sacrament was “promulgated” by St. James.

b) But how are we to explain the relative scarcity of Patristic testimonies in favor of Extreme Unction?

Partly, no doubt, by the Discipline of the Secret, but mainly by the fact that this Sacrament, regarded merely as a complement of Penance, did not become conspicuous and, furthermore, was not in frequent demand at a time when many of the faithful died as martyrs, while others subjected themselves to public penance or postponed Baptism until they were on their death-bed.

Such Patristic evidence as we possess on the subject has reference to the Epistle of St. James, which may be said to be the pivot around which the whole Tradition revolves.

The earliest extant witness is Origen. After enumerating the different ways of obtaining remission of sins, this writer (d. 254) comes seventhly to “the hard and laborious” way of penance. He quotes the Psalmist in support of confession and adds: “In this is fulfilled also what St. James the Apostle says: ‘If anyone is sick,’ etc.”²⁷ Let it not be objected that several of the means of grace mentioned by Origen (martyrdom, almsgiving, etc.) are not Sacraments, for he puts the anointment of the sick on a par with Baptism and Penance, which he undoubtedly regarded as true Sacraments.

St. Chrysostom says the dignity of the priesthood springs from the power of forgiving sins, which is exercised in administering the sacred unction to the sick. “Not only in our regeneration,” he writes, “but likewise after regeneration, have they the power to forgive sins. For the Apostle says: ‘Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church,’” etc.²⁸

The most striking Patristic authority on the subject is Pope Innocent I. “The words of St. James,” he says, “must without doubt be taken or understood of the faithful who are sick, who may be [lawfully] anointed with the holy oil of chrism, of which, having been prepared by the bishop, not only priests, but all Christians may avail themselves for anointing in their own need, or in that of their connections. We notice the superfluous addition of a doubt, whether a bishop may do what is said to priests, for the reason that bishops, hindered by other occupations, cannot go to all the sick. But if the bishop is able to do so, or thinks anyone specially worthy of being visited, he, whose office it is to consecrate the chrism, need not hesitate to bless and anoint the sick person. For this unction may not be given to penitents [i.e., to those undergoing canonical penance], inasmuch as it is a kind of Sacrament. For to persons to whom the other Sacraments are denied, how can it be thought that one kind of Sacrament can be granted?”²⁹

This remarkable, though in several respects obscure passage, is clear on at least four points: (1) the anointing of the sick with the “holy oil of chrism” was regarded as a “genus sacramenti,” from which public penitents were excluded; (2) the Sacrament of the sick was administered by priests and bishops, but only the bishops had power to bless the oil; (3) Extreme Unction was administered to “the faithful” when they were “sick”; (4) the term chrisma does not refer to Confirmation, because that Sacrament is mentioned earlier in Pope Innocent’s letter,³⁰ but must be understood in the wider sense of “oil blessed for purposes of anointment.”

Incidentally also it seems from Pope St. Innocent’s letter that in his day laymen in case of urgent necessity were permitted to apply the holy oil to themselves or others near and dear to them. Needless to say, such lay anointment was not a Sacrament but merely a sacramental.

Another important testimony is that of John Mandukani (Montagouni), Catholicos of the Armenians from 480 to 487. This patriarch, who is called “the second Chrysostom,” in one of his addresses inveighs against magic incantations in case of sickness as an abuse current even among the clergy. The faithful, he writes, “despise the gifts of grace; for the Apostle says: ‘If anyone is sick,’ etc. They [the shepherds] themselves have gone astray, they have relinquished the grace of God, prayer, and the oil of anointment, which is prescribed by law for the sick, seeking refuge [rather] in incantations and magic writings.”³¹

In a homily ascribed to St. Caesarius of Arles (d. 542) we read: “As often as some sickness comes, let him who is ill receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and then anoint his body, in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled which says: ‘If anyone is sick,’ etc. Behold, brethren, how whoever in his infirmity has recourse to the Church, deserves to obtain health of body and forgiveness of sins.”³² This coupling of the remission of sins with bodily healing recurs in another homily of St. Caesarius, in which he says that the person anointed with the sacred chrism “receives both health of body and remission of sins, for the Holy Ghost has given this promise through James.”³³