Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 4
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-a2-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *How often this Sacrament ought to be given.*

Fourthly and lastly it is asked how often this Sacrament ought to be given; and it is asked whether it ought to be repeated. And that it ought not, it seems:

1. *First*, because "no injury is to be done to any Sacrament"; but he who repeats a Sacrament does it injury: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, it seems so *by a similar case*: because the episcopal anointing, or [the anointing] of confirmation, is not repeated: therefore neither ought extreme unction to be repeated, by a like reasoning.

3. Likewise, this seems [so] *by denomination*: because it is called *extreme unction*; but of one man there is one death and one "extreme": therefore he ought to be anointed only once.

**On the contrary:** 1. As often as the disease [returns], so also the medicine; but both bodily and spiritual disease is repeated, namely venial sin and bodily infirmity: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, someone who is in danger according to human judgment and the opinion of physicians is to be anointed, because it is presumed that he labors in his last extremity: if therefore that same man can at another time labor in his last extremity, it seems that he ought to be anointed.

Alongside this it is asked: if some priest begins to anoint and fails in the midst of the anointing, whether it ought to be begun again from the head, or [merely] completed.

And again, whether someone in the same infirmity ought to be anointed twice, as for instance in an incurable infirmity.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** *Since in this Sacrament neither is a character imprinted, nor is a perpetual effect given, it can and ought to be repeated.*

**I respond:** It must be said that this Sacrament, as is plainly intimated in the text, both ought to and can be repeated. — But if the *reason* for this be sought, it must be said that the general reason why a Sacrament ought not to be repeated is that its *effect* is *perpetual*, which is not repeated. Hence the *imprinting of a character* is not the *general* reason, but rather the *perpetuation of the effect*. Hence, once bread has been consecrated, it ought not to be consecrated further, although no character is imprinted there; and similarly blessed oil ought not to be blessed further, nor what has been consecrated be consecrated further. Since therefore in extreme unction no [character] is imprinted nor is a *perpetual effect* given — especially if the man should recover from his infirmity — therefore a second operation of the Sacrament is necessary, and so the medicine can and ought to be repeated without any affront to the Sacrament.

1. To that, then, which is objected — that an injury is done to it in the repetition — it must be said that this is true when a Sacrament is repeated and nothing new is effected; but this has no place in the case at hand.

2. To that which is objected concerning the anointing of confirmation, it must be said that it is not similar, because the effect of a character, which is perpetual, is not present in both cases — [the character] on account of which a Sacrament ought not to be repeated further.

3. To that which is objected concerning the denomination, it must be said that *extreme unction* is [so called] in two ways: either according to *truth*, or according to *our opinion*. In the first way it is not repeated, but in the second way it is; and thus it frequently happens that many are anointed [more than once].

To that which is asked — if the priest fails, whether it ought to be begun anew — it must be said that it is rather to be *supplied* [i.e. completed], what has been begun, for the reason that each anointing has its own special form, as is evident to one who examines the ritual [*ordinarium*]; yet they generally agree in the remission of sin.

To that which is asked concerning prolonged infirmities, some have wished to say that after a year [the Sacrament] can be repeated, for the reason that the revolution of the higher bodies is [then] completed. But it seems utterly absurd that the Sacraments should be regulated according to the motion of the stars. — And therefore it can be said otherwise, that no one is to be anointed in any infirmity unless when he is presumed to be drawing near to his exit [i.e. death]; and this is in the aggravation of an infirmity, a state which nature cannot long sustain, but either conquers or is conquered. If therefore the sick man improves, so that he lives longer — even if he is not perfectly cured, he is nonetheless cured in some measure from the intensity of the disease — and therefore, because venial [sins] can return again, and again bodily infirmity is aggravated, the Sacrament of unction can and ought to be repeated. — And thus the response to the objections is evident.

---