Replies

I was aware of the difference in terminology but wasn't aware that the Roman Catholic Church had changed theirs.

Not only was the terminology changed, the whole sacrament was. If I had a loved one in danger of death, I would insist on Extreme Unction, I expect them to do the same for me when I am dying.

The whole sacrament was not changed. You can't insist on "extreme unction" without at the same time insisting on the sacrament of anointing. The only real difference is that it can be administered in event of any grave illness, potentially mortal surgery etc. But that's not a change in the sacrament. The "old" Extreme Unction could have been administered in event of grave illness. What was changed was the customary definition of grave illness and the customs surrounding when to summon a priest for last rites. When and how the sacrament can be and customarily is administered has changed but the "sacrament" itself has not been changed. And, indeed, the custom of restricting it to the very last minute itself represents a slow development over time. It wasn't always customary to administer it as restrictively as it was in the "good old days"; some of the restrictiveness was lifted.

It is, however, being abused and is being administered routinely and in non-grave illnesses. That's wrong and bishops should put an end to it. But that's not what was prescribed by the changes in discipline. Nothing has changed doctrinally, only rules and regulations, matters of discipline have changed, and the new discipline is being misused and abused. The translations for the rite can certainly be improved etc. but simply to say that a new sacrament was introduced and you are going to ask for the old one reflects a misunderstanding of what was changed. Do you really think the Church can change her sacraments???