Dist. 23, Art. 1, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/23/q/bon-sent-IV-d23-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *What the matter of extreme unction is.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning the matter of this Sacrament; and the Master says that the matter of this Sacrament is «oil consecrated by a bishop». But at first it seems that *some other element* rather than oil ought to be employed:

1. *First*, because this Sacrament is [the Sacrament] of those in peril and drawing near to death, and these are most of all in the article of necessity: therefore for such people provision ought most of all to be made from a common element: if therefore water is more common, it seems [it should be used], etc.

2. Likewise, in confirmation, in which abundant grace is given, there is not only the element of *oil*, but also of *balsam*, which is precious: therefore it seems that in this Sacrament, since it introduces a man into the kingdom, which is a most precious reward, it seems that it ought to be balsam.

Likewise, it seems that it ought not to be *consecrated*:

3. Because baptism and the eucharist, in which there is great grace and efficacy, do not need matter consecrated by another sanctification than that which is done in the form of the Sacrament: therefore by parity of reasoning neither does extreme unction.

4. Likewise, for the perfect being of a Sacrament these two suffice, namely *signification* and *sanctification*: signification is through the element, sanctification is through the word; but these two are present, if someone is anointed with simple oil: therefore it seems that there is there a perfect Sacrament.

Likewise, if the Sacrament of unction must be made from *consecrated* oil, I ask: to which does the name or account of Sacrament belong, to the *oil* or to the *unction*? — That [it belongs] to the *unction*, seems [to follow] from the very denomination of the Sacrament.

5. But that [it belongs] to the *consecrated* oil, seems [to follow], because *oil* is a sign, and *consecrated oil* is «a sacred sign of a sacred thing», which not only has signification, but also a certain kind of causality through benediction: therefore it seems that it has in itself the complete account of a Sacrament.

6. Likewise, consecrated bread is the Sacrament, not the eating itself, which rather is the use: therefore it seems likewise in the case at hand that consecrated oil is the Sacrament, and the unction is the use: therefore it is not fittingly named. But if this is not true, it does not seem that consecrated matter is here required.

7. Likewise, it seems that it need not be *consecrated by a bishop*, because to consecrate — that is, to confect the body of the Lord, where there is transubstantiation — is a greater thing than [to consecrate] oil, where the same substance remains; but a simple priest can [do] the first: therefore also the second.

Bound up with this is the question: why it must be oil; and why simple, not mixed; and why consecrated by a bishop; and whether that consecration makes the consecrated oil to be the Sacrament.

### Conclusion

> *The matter of extreme unction is oil consecrated by a bishop.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that some have wished to say that the *matter* in this Sacrament is oil, but the episcopal *consecration* supervening makes it to be the *Sacrament*; while the *anointing* that follows is the *use* or dispensation of the Sacrament.

But since this is repugnant to the naming of the Sacrament and also to common opinion, it is therefore better to say that, just as water in baptism is the element, so in confirmation chrism, and in unction oil consecrated by a bishop [is the matter].

Now the reason can be taken from the side of the *efficient* cause, that is, of the *institutor*, and also from the side of the *end*. From the side of the *institutor*: for since Christ instituted baptism and the eucharist through Himself — He who through Himself was able to sanctify — therefore there is no other preparatory consecration necessary, but it only makes for solemnity. But this Sacrament the Holy Spirit instituted through the Apostles, who could not sanctify except through God; therefore the matter is not a simple element, but oil consecrated through the word and invocation of the Holy Spirit, and this through the word of bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles; so that, just as the Holy Spirit instituted through the Apostles, so also now He may consecrate through bishops. — From the side of the *end* the reason is taken: for here is given grace healing spiritual languors, and grace is given ordering [one] to perfect health, which indeed is [the health] of glory; therefore it ought to be signified through *oil*, which is curative, by reason of the curing, and through *consecrated oil*, by reason of the ordering to a supereminent curing, and through *simple oil*, not mixed, because for entrance into glory a good conscience is required and suffices. — These things being seen, it is easy to resolve [the objections].

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the commonness of the matter, it must be said that this is not a Sacrament of *necessity*; and *besides*, a small amount of the element suffices, and this can be had everywhere, and therefore there is no danger. *Besides*, the avoidance of danger ought not to prejudice the dignity and fittingness of the Sacrament.

2. To that which is objected, that it ought to be mixed with balsam, as in confirmation: it must be said that it is not similar, because in *confirmation* grace is given for fighting in life, by which one must walk not only according to what is pleasing to God, but also toward one's *neighbor*; whereas in unction grace is given for resisting the devil, lest he be able to detain [the soul], and for this a [good] *reputation* is not necessary, but a *good conscience*; and because aromatic *balsam* signifies a good reputation, and shining *oil* a good conscience: therefore etc.

3. To that which is objected, that the eucharist does not need another consecration: it must be said that it is not similar, both from the side of the *institutor* and from the side of the *end*, as has been seen.

4. To that which is objected, that in unconsecrated oil, if unction be done, there is signification and sanctification: it must be said that this is false. For first signification is lacking, which requires not only *representation*, but also *institution*; but it has been instituted to be done thus. Secondly sanctification is lacking, because the word does not have efficacy unless it have a fitting element.

5. 6. To that which is objected, that consecrated oil is the Sacrament: it must be said that, properly speaking, it is not the *Sacrament*, but *ordered to the Sacrament*. And the reason for this is that it has neither perfect *signification* nor *sanctification*, until it be applied to the sick person, and the priestly prayer supervene; for then is signified the grace inwardly anointing, and then it is first present, not before: and therefore it is not similar to the body of the Lord, where in the first sanctification the conversion takes place, and afterward no further sanctification is added that would introduce a new power.

7. To that which is objected, that priests can confect the body of the Lord, and so consecrate oil: it must be said that it does not hold, because the power in the ministers of the Church is as great as the Lord distributes to the members; nor was it fitting that the power of consecrating oil be communicated to priests in the same way as [the power] of confecting the body of Christ, because one bishop can readily consecrate the oil of unction for a whole province; but he cannot daily sing Mass in the individual parishes, as is fitting, since that [body] is the daily bread, common to all: and thus that [objection] is clear.