Angelus already explained the Latin.  It cannot be 0% olive oil.  Olive oil has to be the base and then add others.

By whose authority could similar oil be added? St. James only mentions Olive oil.

After all you wrote, you write this?! You have totally contradicted your former post. Gosh.

Benedikt, I owe you an apology. I just realised, Stubborn answered in your stead and without looking properly I assumed it was you. I'm glad I spotted that - for a while there I thought you had developed bi-polar !

Bebedikt's assessment is correct. I'm basically repeating what he says in a slightly more expansive way.

The part that I high-lighted - may I ask, does St. Thomas Aquinas teach this (and if so where) or is this your personal opinion?

The following in the Summa is under the tile: Whether Chrism (oil) is a fitting matter for this sacrament (Confirmation):

Hoc etiam oleum proprie dicitur oleum, et maxime habetur in usu ubi haberi potest=
Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had.

Quilibet autem alius liquor ex similitudine huius oleum nominatur, nec est in usu communi, nisi in supplementum apud eos quibus deest oleum olivarum. Et ideo hoc oleum solum assumitur in usum huius et quorundam aliorum sacramentorum =

However, any other liquid named after the similarity of this oil (meaning a similar oil to Olive Oil) is not in common use except when supplementing among those deficient in olive oil.

This similar oil is not in common use = inferring it is sometimes used.
But is more commonly used as a supplement when Olive Oil is deficient.

The very fact that other similar oils were allowed by the Church supports Pope Pius XII, who teaches that the Church cannot alter the substance instituted by Christ but does have authority over the substance that the Church has mandated (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42)

St. James merely states 'oil' which St. Thomas Aquinas states means the native oil, that is, olive oil. Yet, here we see that similar plant based oils being commonly used as well. Regardless of how they were used, they were used. According to your reasoning, all those early sacraments were invalid.

Reply to objection 4 refers specifically to Confirmation. As it is not as essential as Baptism, one can wait a while for the preferable Olive Oil to be got.
However this reply could not be applied to Extreme Unction and indeed, given the title, it only applied to Confirmation. So what did the Church fathers use when Olive Oil was lacking? Or did they let people die without the Sacrament while waiting for the post?

Boru,

St. Thomas does not say that a non-olive oil is allowed to completely REPLACE olive oil. He says that another non-olive oil is allowed to SUPPLEMENT olive oil in the mixture, if and only if the supplies of olive oil are running low.

In a mixture of oils, olive oil is still present to some degree. And it is spread throughout that mixture. So the "matter" of the Sacrament is present in all of the mixed oil to some degree. No one said that the oil applied for the Sacrament had to be PURE olive oil all by itself. In fact, Chrism is a mixture of balsam and olive oil. Therefore, it is clearly not a problem if other non-oily substances are included in the mixture. So why would it be a problem to supplement a little non-olive oil in the case of necessity? It is not a problem, according to the Church and St. Thomas. The essential thing is that there must be enough olive oil in the mixture so that when the mixture is applied, there is olive oil included in that application.

As I said, in his Reply to Objection 4, St. Thomas says that the concern that olive oil might not be available in some locale is of no importance. He says that because the Sacrament of Confirmation is not a necessary Sacrament, the recipients can wait for the next shipment of olive oil rather than use a non-olive oil as a wholesale REPLACEMENT for olive oil. In other words, it would be worse to use no olive oil than to delay the reception of the Sacrament. This is because to use no olive oil in the Chrism would make it invalid matter.

Anyway, why are you arguing about this? What is your angle here? Are you just trying to be argumentative? FWIW, Abp. Lefebvre, who you seem to respect, agreed that olive oil must be used in the Chrism for the Sacrament to be valid.

Council of Florence states:

"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.....

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments...The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold...

...The fifth sacrament is extreme unction. Its matter is olive oil blessed by a priest...."

This is very clear and very simple. Florence said the matter is blessed Olive Oil. The Church did change who blesses the olive oil  from a priest to a bishop, but did not and cannot change the matter of Olive Oil, any more than it can change the matter of water for baptism.
 
So Boru, if Fr. Hesse is wrong, so is Pope Eugenius IV and the Council of Florence. I mean, all he did was repeat their exact same teaching.


You really should accept reality, which is that Pope Paul VI changed the matter to go along with a new sacrament...

Source

Please, please note that the rite surrounding this Sacrament in the Novus Ordo has been radically changed and mostly amounts now to a simple blessing (blessings for the sick are always OK, of course, but the Sacrament is reserved traditionally for those who are gravely ill, especially those in danger of death from bodily illness or injury). Some of the changes:
 

• The primary purpose of the Sacrament is the remission of sins and the preparedness of the soul.
   
   In the new rite, the priest asks no pardon of God for sins and the focus is on the body. 
• The matter of the Sacrament is olive oil blessed by a Bishop using these words, "Emitte, quaesumus Domine, Spiritum sanctum tuum Paraclitum de coelis in hanc pinguedinem olivae, quam de viridi ligno producere dignatus es and refectionem mentis et corporis..." ("Send forth we pray, Your Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, from heaven into this rich substance of oil").
   
   In the new rite, any oil of plant origin may be used, blessed by a priest using these words: "May your blessing come upon all who are anointed with this oil, that they may be freed from pain and illness and made well again in body and mind and soul." The Holy Ghost is no longer invoked. 
   
• The form of the Sacrament is: "Through this Holy Unction or oil, and through the great goodness of His mercy, may God pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed by evil use of sight (sight, hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch, ability to walk)."
   
   In the new rite, it is given as "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." There is no request of God to remit sins.

Yes, Stubborn, thank you for finding the information from the Council of Florence.  Except, in Boru's mis-reading of Pius XII, since the Council of Florence was a church decision, then the Church can reverse Florence's decrees.  As she keeps (incorrectly) quoting, "The Church has the power to change that which she established."

I know it's crazy. PPVI did establish the conciliar sacrament of the anointing of the sick, so everything and anything about that sacrament the conciliar church can change at will.   

I'm trying to get you to step outside your box and see things how the Church sees things. You are attacking a Vicar of Christ over this. Yes, the prescribed and preferred oil is Olive oil. No question. But there has been a precedent for similar oils being used in the history of the Church, when there is a case of necessity. The very fact that the Church allowed this - and allowed the mixing of oils - and allowed the mixing of balsam - when St. James prescribed only olive oil, proves that when it comes to the Matter used in Sacraments that have been determined by the Church, and by the power of the Church, the Church can make modifications as St. Pius XII outlines. That is the core point. Pope Paul VI, gave bishops special permission to bless similar oil in cases/places where it is very difficult to acquire olive oil, rather than let a Catholic die without Extreme Unction. As Pope, who Christ said can 'bind and loosen', he has the power and authority to do so. And I stress again, Christ instituted the Matter and Form for Baptism and the Holy Eucharist and then handed over His teaching authority to His Church. This is a scriptural fact. From that point on it was the Church who decided, guided by the Holy Ghost.

Writes Fr. John Bligh in his 1956 theological book 'Ordination to the Priesthood': "The official adoption of the terminology of 'matter' and 'form' had the unfortunate effect of encouraging theologians to think that the essential rites of every sacrament must be unchangeable. In the physical world whenever there is a distinction of matter and of substantial form, there are distinct bodies...that form plus that matter makes that body. Hence the terminology of matter and form, borrowed ...from the physical world (erroneously suggests) that a change of the matter and form of the sacraments would mean..new sacraments..other than those instituted by Christ...".  Hence it was concluded that the Church has no power to altar the matter and form of any of the sacraments. This erroneously conclusion...".

No, you're not understanding the difference between the terms 'substantial' and/or 'essential'.

The Church allows MIXING of olive oil + another oil, because the oil is still 'substantially' or 'essentially' from olives.  The Church does not allow one to use 100% peanut oil, because this is not, in any way, related to olives.

In the same way, the Church has allowed communion hosts to be made from a very small % of wheat, so that gluten-intolerant people won't have a health issue.  But the host is still made of wheat.  A host which does not contain a certain % of wheat is invalid.

Same for mass wine.  There must be a certain % of this wine made from grapes.  Non-grape wine is invalid.

Candles at mass must be beeswax.  Non-beeswax would be illicit/sinful.  Not sure about if invalid.

Water must be used for baptism.  In cases of extreme necessity, one could use "tea" because is it essentially water.  A baptism with wine would be invalid.

Council of Florence states:This is very clear and very simple. Florence said the matter is blessed Olive Oil. The Church did change who blesses the olive oil  from a priest to a bishop, but did not and cannot change the matter of Olive Oil, any more than it can change the matter of water for baptism.
 
So Boru, if Fr. Hesse is wrong, so is Pope Eugenius IV and the Council of Florence. I mean, all he did was repeat their exact same teaching.


You really should accept reality, which is that Pope Paul VI changed the matter to go along with a new sacrament...

Context, dear boy, context.

"There are seven sacraments of the new Law, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony, which differ greatly from the sacraments of the old Law. The latter were not causes of grace, but only prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ; whereas the former, ours, both contain grace and bestow it on those who worthily receive them."
All actions and words performed in the Old Testament did not confer grace. They have no binding relevance to the the matter and form of the New Testament.

"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected." 
Agreed. There must be a matter conveying the form with the intent to do as the Church does.

"...the sacrament is conferred if the action (matter) is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity..."
Matter is the physical ACTION conveying the sacrament in conjunction with the words (form) and the intent to confer the Sacrament.

"The second sacrament is confirmation. Its matter is chrism made from oil and balsam blessed by a bishop, the oil symbolizing the gleaming brightness of conscience and balsam symbolizing the odour of a good reputation." 
St. James did not mention balsam (gum/sap of the balsam tree). Nor is olive oil specifically mentioned as it does in Extreme Unction.

"Then they (Peter and John) laid their hands on them and they received the holy Spirit'. In place of this imposition of hands, confirmation is given in the church."
In place of? So the matter was changed from the imposition of hands to the chrism of oil and balsam...how interesting.

"The fifth sacrament is extreme unction. Its matter is olive oil blessed by a priest."

Nowhere in this docuмent - EcuмENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) - does it say that a sacrament is rendered invalid if anything besides Olive Oil is used. YOU and Fr. Hesse are the ones saying it would be invalid. Not the Council of Florence. The Council of Florence merely states that Olive Oil is the matter chosen by the Church. The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI states that Olive Oil is the matter of the Church. And like Pope Eugenius IV, and the Church Fathers of the past, he simply added a modification. Olive oil was chosen for its perfect symbolism, not because it has magic power to confer a Sacrament. It is the visible action of applying the Olive Oil in conjunction with the form and the right intent that confers the Sacrament. Thereby, in the case of necessity, another similar plant-based oil will also logically do the same as long as the form and intent are there.

And once again, as Pope Pius XII makes very clear, Pope Paul VI was well within his authority to make this modification: "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate." SO,4.

Context, dear boy, context.

"There are seven sacraments of the new Law, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony, which differ greatly from the sacraments of the old Law. The latter were not causes of grace, but only prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ; whereas the former, ours, both contain grace and bestow it on those who worthily receive them."
All actions and words performed in the Old Testament did not confer grace. They have no binding relevance to the the matter and form of the New Testament.

"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected." 
Agreed. There must be a matter conveying the form with the intent to do as the Church does.

"...the sacrament is conferred if the action (matter) is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity..."
Matter is the physical ACTION conveying the sacrament in conjunction with the words (form) and the intent to confer the Sacrament.

"The second sacrament is confirmation. Its matter is chrism made from oil and balsam blessed by a bishop, the oil symbolizing the gleaming brightness of conscience and balsam symbolizing the odour of a good reputation." 
St. James did not mention balsam (gum/sap of the balsam tree). Nor is olive oil specifically mentioned as it does in Extreme Unction.

"Then they (Peter and John) laid their hands on them and they received the holy Spirit'. In place of this imposition of hands, confirmation is given in the church."
In place of? So the matter was changed from the imposition of hands to the chrism of oil and balsam...how interesting.

"The fifth sacrament is extreme unction. Its matter is olive oil blessed by a priest."

Nowhere in this docuмent - EcuмENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) - does it say that a sacrament is rendered invalid if anything besides Olive Oil is used. YOU and Fr. Hesse are the ones saying it would be invalid. Not the Council of Florence. The Council of Florence merely states that Olive Oil is the matter chosen by the Church. The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI states that Olive Oil is the matter of the Church. And like Pope Eugenius IV, and the Church Fathers of the past, he simply added a modification. Olive oil was chosen for its perfect symbolism, not because it has magic power to confer a Sacrament. It is the visible action of applying the Olive Oil in conjunction with the form and the right intent that confers the Sacrament. Thereby, in the case of necessity, another similar plant-based oil will also logically do the same as long as the form and intent are there.

And once again, as Pope Pius XII makes very clear, Pope Paul VI was well within his authority to make this modification: "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate." SO,4.

Ok, so your entire argument rests on the claim that the matter for Confirmation/Holy Orders is "oil" (of any kind).

Even though, the greek word used in Scripture = olive.
Even though, all throughout the Old Testament, olive oil was used EXCLUSIVELY, for annointing of all kinds, in religious ceremonies.
Even though, as pointed out, the symbolic meaning of Christ's agony in the Garden, is "mount olives".
Even though Florence says the MATTER is olive oil.
Even though Trent says that olive oil is in Scripture.
Even though Paul 6 says the matter is olive oil and it's in Scripture.

But you say "just oil".  

Please provide evidence.