“Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven” (James 5:14-15). The Council of Trent held that the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, implicit in Mark’s Gospel (cf. Mark 6:13), had been promulgated explicitly through the Epistle of James which “teaches the matter, the form, the proper minister, and the effect of this salutary sacrament. For the Church has understood the matter thereof to be oil blessed by a bishop. For the anointing very aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit with which the soul of the sick person is invisibly anointed; and furthermore, that those words, ‘By this anointing,’ etc., are the form.”¹ These claims of Trent cannot, of course, be derived fully and in exact detail from the scriptural text. We must, consequently, undertake a closer examination.

Oil for the Ill

Regarding the remote matter of this Sacrament, for most of history all liturgical books demanded olive oil,² and since olive oil was presumed to be implied in generic mentions of oil,³ the Council of Florence’s requirement of “olive oil”⁴ was considered nearly certain. Yet a small minority pointed out that the Epistle of James imposes no restriction, and that evaluations of sacramental matter often hinge upon common estimation. Consequently, this minority judged that “valid matter of this sacrament, speaking absolutely, is oil of any sort [quodcumque], e.g., oil obtained from nuts and other similar things, which in color, taste and other properties are altogether or nearly the same as olive oil, and which people not rarely actually consider, and use as, oil.”⁵ This theological judgment was vindicated when Paul VI acknowledged that olive oil, “prescribed until now for the valid celebration of the sacrament,” was difficult to obtain in some areas. Thus, “from now on, according to circumstances, another kind of oil can also be used, provided it is derived from plants, and is thus similar to olive oil.”⁶ While oil for the Latin rite should be pure, adding other substances (as practiced in other rites) “does not affect validity of the matter, unless extraneous elements are admixed in greater quantity than the oil.”⁷

This plant-derived oil “must be blessed for this purpose by the bishop or by a priest who has the faculty, either from the law or by special concession of the Apostolic See.”⁸ Though not explicit in the Roman Ritual, a modern curial reply acknowledges that “according to the more common opinion, the blessing of the oil is necessary for the validity of the sacrament.”⁹ As far back as 1595, decisions of the Holy Office insisted that presbyters could only perform this blessing by papal delegation, granted quite rarely to Latin priests.¹⁰ Eastern discipline since well before the Great Schism has, nonetheless, involved priestly blessing of oil of the sick. To explain their undoubtedly valid conferral of the Sacrament, rather than acknowledge episcopal authority to delegate this blessing, the Roman understanding has been that “in the Greek Church all priests possess [papal] delegation tacitly.”¹¹ The modern Roman rite and canon law removed difficulties arising from delegation by authorizing blessing by “any presbyter in a case of necessity, but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament.”¹²

Is some specific form of blessing required? The Scriptures and Councils provide no fixed text, and ample liturgical variations through time and place exclude a high degree of specificity. Furthermore, while the current rite indicates that the oil “must be blessed for this purpose,”¹³ the definitions of Florence, Trent, and Paul VI’s apostolic constitution do not specify “for this purpose.” In historic debate on this matter, many required a blessing specifically as Oil of the Sick (i.e., for use in Anointing of the Sick), but St. Alphonsus conceded the probability that the minister need not use a specific text or even explicitly bless the oil as intended for Anointing of the Sick. Hence some held that “speculatively, it seems that any formula used by a bishop has power (valere) [to bless], even a simple sign of the cross.”¹⁴ Given this theoretical potential, respected authors allowed for conditional anointing with Chrism or the Oil of Catechumens, though the Sacrament should be repeated conditionally if Oil of the Sick later became available.¹⁵ This speculation may be far less relevant now that all priests may bless oil within the rite. Moreover, ministers may preserve a sufficient supply of Oil of the Sick “by adding new oil in lesser quantity, but this may not be done routinely for the sake of convenience.”¹⁶

Embodied Sacrament

However that duly blessed oil has been obtained, “the proximate matter is the anointing with the oil.”¹⁷ More precisely, “For validity, anointing of the body of the sick is required. Consumption, e.g., by way of drinking, would not be valid.”¹⁸ Because most rites prescribe multiple anointings of different parts of the body, scholars disagreed about how many anointings were necessary for validity until the early 20th century, when the Holy Office provided a sacramental form for emergency use when time permitted anointing of only one part of the body.¹⁹ Current discipline remains clear that “it is sufficient that a single anointing be given on the forehead or, because of the particular condition of the sick person, on another suitable part of the body.”²⁰ Nonetheless, normally the forehead will be anointed while reciting the first half of the form and the hands anointed as the second half is pronounced. “The priest may also anoint additional parts of the body, for example, the area of pain or injury. He does not repeat the sacramental form.”²¹ Whether a single or repeated action, the application of the oil must be a true anointing, meaning “it must be spread” on the body, “(usually in the form of a cross) and not merely dropped on or touched to” it.²² Oil lends itself quite readily to such diffusion, hence a single drop can suffice to anoint validly,²³ provided the spreading (essential to the sacramental sign) is perceptible.²⁴ At present, the minister is encouraged to apply a generous sign.²⁵ Laying on of hands is not essential for this Sacrament, so an instrument may be used to anoint, but this is only permitted for grave reason, such as fear of contagion.²⁶

The Healing Word(s)

The form spoken in the Roman rite while anointing is currently, “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up” (Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam, adiuvet te Dominus gratia Spiritus Sancti, ut a peccatis liberatum te salvet atque propitius allevet.).⁶ This differs from the previous Roman form, which had begun the same way yet petitioned “may the Lord forgive you all the evil you have done” (quidquid deliquisti)²⁷ if a single anointing was performed, or continuing “through the power of sight/hearing/smell/speech/touch” as each respective sense was anointed. These Roman forms differ considerably from the Byzantine form, which reads in part “Heal your servant N. of the spiritual and bodily ills which afflict him, and restore him by the grace of your Christ, through the prayers of our most holy Lady, the Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and through the prayers of all your saints.”²⁸

Comparison of many rites past and present reveals that some pronounce a form only once while anointing many parts of the body, others pronounce a proper form for each organ, and still others repeat a single form as each successive organ is anointed. The effects requested likewise vary, as some mention only forgiveness, others only physical healing, with a further group asking for the health of both body and soul. And while the majority express the action of the minister (e.g., “through this holy anointing”), not even this is found in all.²⁹ On the principle that only things common to all forms are essential, and against the position that the entire form is required for validity,³⁰ it seems more probable that only those words are necessary “that enunciate the action of anointing and the sacramental effect.”³¹ For instance, from the old Roman form it was theorized that “may the Lord forgive you all the evil you have done”³² or even “may the Lord forgive you”—as expressing an effect and a subject on whom it was conferred—might suffice.³³

Finally, while the expressed effects vary by form, all valid variants will be at least formally deprecatory. In other words, while they may be materially indicative, the sense of the words must express a petition, since the Sacrament is conferred through the “prayer of faith.”³⁴ For example, an ancient Celtic Ritual included the form “I anoint you with sanctified oil in the name of the Trinity, that you might be saved unto ages of ages.”³⁵ The purpose clause effectively renders the statement a petition “that you might be saved.” Thus, when celebrating the modern Roman rite, previous theological tradition suggests little doubt arising from omission of the phrase “in his love and mercy,” while alterations to the remainder of the form present more substantial doubts soluble by considering whether the petitions to help, save, and raise up the recipient have been effectively expressed.

_{^{Image Source: AB/Wikimedia Commons. Christ Healing the Blind by El Greco}}

1. Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, De extrema unctione c. 1.
2. Felix M. Capello, SJ., Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, 5th ed., vol. 3 (Rome: Marietti, 1944), 21.
3. Eduardo F. Regatillo, SJ., Ius Sacramentarium, vol. 1 (Santander: Sal Terrae, 1945), 418.
4. Decree for the Armenians.
5. F.M. Capello, 22.
6. Apostolic Constitution Sacram unctionem infirmorum.
7. E.F. Regatillo, 418.
8. Pastoral Care of the Sick (PCS), 21.
9. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, reply of April 18, 1994, quoted in John M. Huels, The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic Ministry, 3rd rev. ed. (Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 2002), 150.
10. F.M. Capello, 26-31.
11. Dominic M. Prummer, OP, Handbook of Moral Theology (New York: Kenedy, 1957), 376.
12. Code of Canon Law, Can. 999.2.
13. PCS, 21
14. E.F. Regatillo, 419; cf. F.M. Capello, 36. A priest’s faculty to bless could, nonetheless, be conditioned upon using a prescribed formula.
15. Nicholas Halligan, OP., The Administration of the Sacraments (Staten Island: Alba House, 1963), 344; F.M. Capello, 35; Prummer, 376; Regatillo, 419.
16. CDWDS reply of April 18, 1994, in J. Huels, 150.
17. CDWDS reply of April 18, 1994, in Huels, 150.
18. E.F. Regatillo, 419.
19. F.M. Capello, 45. In 1917 the same Holy Office declared that when supplying omitted ceremonies after the urgency had passed, further anointings were to be conferred absolutely, indicating that they were now merely ceremonial and there was no doubt as to the validity of the Sacrament already conferred.
20. Pastoral Care of the Sick, 23.
21. Pastoral Care of the Sick, 124.
22. N. Halligan, 345.
23. E.F. Regatillo, 420.
24. F.M. Capello, 48.
25. Pastoral Care of the Sick, 107.
26. Code of Canon Law, Can. 1000 §2.
27. Rituale Romanum, Tit. V, c. 2, 8.
28. Text provided by the Ruthenian Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, https://mci.archpitt.org/liturgy/Anointing_of_the_Sick.html, accessed October 9, 2025.
29. F.M. Capello, 72.
30. J.M. Huels, 150.
31. E.F. Regatillo, 421.
32. N. Halligan, 346.
33. F.M. Capello, 67.
34. E.F.Regatillo, 421.
35. F.M. Capello, 64.