THEOLOGOS 1/2015 | ŠTÚDIE Cardinal M Browne of Ireland was opposed to any change in the name of the sacrament He referred to the pronouncements of the Church of the last millennium: First Council of Lyons 1245, Second Council of Lyons 1274, the Council of Constance of 1418, the Council of Florence of 1439 in the Decree for the Armenians, the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Profession of Faith of the year 1564.56 It does not diminish the subject of the sacrament only for people dying, but it can be administered to those who are quasi in mortis articulo The stipulation sine qua non, however, is the fear of death, and is found especially in those who are in ultimate danger or so seriously ill that they realize that they will face death „One should note, however, that although the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy moved away from such an extreme narrowing of the subject of the sacrament, many expressions of Cardinal Browne found resonance in determining the subject of the sacramental anointing.“57 C Sabaia Bandeira de Mollo disagreed with the proposed name change of the sacrament In his view, in accordance with the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, the discussed sacrament is anointing at death – unctio pro morte, non simpliciter pro infirmitate Any change in doctrine would undermine the infallibility of the Church.58 Keep in mind, however, that the vast majority of the fathers of the Council opted for a name change and an extension of the concept of the sacrament and the subject of the anointing At the head of this group is worth mentioning Bishop P. Rougé of France In his speech he pointed out that, although the Council of Trent narrowed the subject of the sacrament, it did however, withhold a precise definition from its decision.59 Referring also to Trent, the second canon of teaching on the anointing 56 57 58 59 The sequence of numbers are in the order listed individual councils: Denz 833, 860, 1259, 1324, 1694 – 1697, 1716 – 1719, 1864 J STEFAŃSKI, Sakrament , s. 43 cf J STEFAŃSKI, Sakrament , s. 43 “It is also declared that this unction should be given to the sick, but especially (praesertim) to those that are so dangerously laid up as to seem to be placed at the end of life; whence also, it is called the sacrament of the dying But if the sick after receiving this unction, shall recover, they may again be assited by the support of this sacrament, when they fall under a similar danger of death.“ Of the Minister of the Sacrament and the Time when it ought to be Given, English Trans Perceval, A P., The Roman Schism, Illustrated, From the Records of the Catholic Church London, 1836 p. 275 The discussion about the term praesertim – as it should be properly understood Bishop Rouge explained it based on the context of the pronouncements of the Council: if he assumed that the the subject of the sacrament were only those who are at the end of life, it is irreconcilable next sentence, from which it is clear that if the patient recovered it may receive it a time second Thus, the statement of the Council does not limit the subject only to people who who are close to death 27