Okay, I'm going to be a bit of a bonehead here (nil novi sub soli...), but why is Extreme Unction limited only to those in danger of death?

Scripture refers to "anyone sick among you", not necessarily "anyone who is in danger of death among you".

Given this, how do we refute the Novus Ordo assertion that Anointing of the Sick may be conferred, even though death is nowhere near imminent?

It's not limited only to those in danger of death. Heck, before I went in for surgery I received it - and most certainly will again if that situation arises again. Also, my dad received it some months before he died, just as his dementia was getting to the point that we secured him that sacrament while he still had some of his mind left to understand it, then he received it again before he died.

No, it is not only for those whose death is imminent, even if it is the sacrament for the dying.

It's not limited only to those in danger of death. Heck, before I went in for surgery I received it - and most certainly will again if that situation arises again. 

Yes, yes it is.  You received it inappropriately if your surgery was ordainary and routine and did not bring with it a significant risk fo death.  Pre V-2 theology manuals indicate that ordinary surgery would not qualify for Last Rites.  Example given is an ordinary appendectomy ... vs. someone who's had a ruptured appendix.

Greek "asthenei" means to be lacking in strength or power, translated well as "infirmus" into Latin but perhaps without the same connotation.  It implies incapacity, something debilitating, rather than simple illness.

Ordinary terms that mean one thing in the colloquial language quickly took on theological meaning in the Church.  "presbyter" colloquially meant "old man," or "elder," but very early the Church applied that to young ordained priests.  "episcopos" means "overseer" but it had a specialized meaning.  "charis" meant "favor", thus the crappy "o higly favored one" modern false translations of "full of grace" for Our Lady, but "charis" clearly had a technical theological meaning very early.  It's like our use of the word "grace".  In colloquial language it has to do with elegance or beauty, but when we say "grace of God", we're referring to a term with a very specific technical meaning.  If someone 1,000 year from now after English was no longer spoken discovered a text referring to the grace of God, and started translating it as "the elegance of God," they'd be absurdly wrong.  That's exactly what's being done by the faithless Modernists with the texts of Sacred Scripture.

So we refer only to Tradition to help us understand what terms like "old man" (presbyter), "overseer" (episcopos), "grace" (charis), and here "infirm" (asthenos) mean in the theological language of the Church.

Don't be fooled by the Modernist attempt to colloquialize the language of the early Church.  I had planned to write my Doctoral Dissertation on this very subject after I had completed Ph.D coursed at Catholic University, but my life took a different term and I never completed the Doctorate.

No Pax, we were not incapacitated in either of the examples, iow, we were not on our death beds. Sick, yes, incapacitated, no.

Well, then all the pre-V2 theology manuals would hold that this was not a legitimate administration of Last Rites.  One possible extenuating circuмstance might be if the individuals don't have regular access to priests and the Sacraments, on a mission circuit.

That's all subjective - in my case it was open heart surgery.... Waiting till the person is unconscious on their death bed, or so sick that they cannot receive their Viaticuм, or confess their sins, is playing with fire.

That's exactly the point and why you were allowed to receive it.  Open heart surgery is a grave surgery; plenty of people have died during the operation.  So, even if it was not "likely" that you would die during the operation, it's possible.  So the priest is allowed to assume that pre-surgery is your last chance.


Same situation with your father.  As his dementia was increasing, it's possible his condition would worsen.  If he has full dementia, he wouldn't have the mental faculties to adequately confess his sins (lost memories).  So this was a grave situation.

That's exactly the point and why you were allowed to receive it.  Open heart surgery is a grave surgery; plenty of people have died during the operation.  So, even if it was not "likely" that you would die during the operation, it's possible.  So the priest is allowed to assume that pre-surgery is your last chance.


Same situation with your father.  As his dementia was increasing, it's possible his condition would worsen.  If he has full dementia, he wouldn't have the mental faculties to adequately confess his sins (lost memories).  So this was a grave situation.

Yes, which is why one may receive Extreme Unction even though death is nowhere near imminent *at the time it is administered* - but it can and likely should be administered when the possibility of death is definitely lurking.



 

I was reading up a bit on E.U. in Pohle ( https://archive.org/details/V11ExtremeUnctionHolyOrdersMatrimony/page/n54/mode/1up?view=theater ) and found this interesting historical tidbit:

That's really interesting.  Father Leo Carley (Independent Traditional priest) was famous for administering Last Rites to people who were given 0 chance of survival, only to see them fully recover.