Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Consequenter considerandum est de sacramento poenitentiae. Circa quod
|
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod poenitentia non sit sacramentum. Gregorius enim dicit, et habetur in decretis, I, qu. I, sacramenta sunt Baptisma, chrisma, corpus et sanguis Christi, quae ob id sacramenta dicuntur quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum divina virtus secretius operatur salutem. Sed hoc non contingit in poenitentia, quia non adhibentur aliquae res corporales sub quibus divina virtus operetur salutem. Ergo poenitentia non est sacramentum. | Objection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a sacrament. For Gregory [*Cf. Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19] says: "The sacraments are Baptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Christ; which are called sacraments because under the veil of corporeal things the Divine power works out salvation in a hidden manner." But this does not happen in Penance, because therein corporeal things are not employed that, under them, the power of God may work our salvation. Therefore Penance is not a sacrament. |
| Praeterea, sacramenta Ecclesiae a ministris Christi exhibentur, secundum illud I Cor. IV, sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei. Sed poenitentia non exhibetur a ministris Christi, sed interius a Deo hominibus inspiratur, secundum illud Ierem. XXXI, postquam convertisti me, egi poenitentiam. Ergo videtur quod poenitentia non sit sacramentum. | Objection 2: Further, the sacraments of the Church are shown forth by the ministers of Christ, according to 1 Cor. 4:1: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." But Penance is not conferred by the ministers of Christ, but is inspired inwardly into man by God, according to Jer. 31:19: "After Thou didst convert me, I did penance." Therefore it seems that Penance is not a sacrament. |
| Praeterea, in sacramentis de quibus supra diximus, est aliquid quod est sacramentum tantum, aliquid quod est res et sacramentum, aliquid vero quod est res tantum, ut ex praemissis patet. Sed hoc non invenitur in poenitentia. Ergo poenitentia non est sacramentum. | Objection 3: Further, in the sacraments of which we have already spoken above, there is something that is sacrament only, something that is both reality and sacrament, and something that is reality only, as is clear from what has been stated (Question [66], Article [1]). But this does not apply to Penance. Therefore Penance is not a sacrament. |
| Sed contra est quod, sicut Baptismus adhibetur ad purificandum a peccato, ita et poenitentia, unde et Petrus dixit Simoni, Act. VIII, poenitentiam age ab hac nequitia tua. Sed Baptismus est sacramentum, ut supra dictum est. Ergo pari ratione et poenitentia. | On the contrary, As Baptism is conferred that we may be cleansed from sin, so also is Penance: wherefore Peter said to Simon Magus (Acts 8:22): "Do penance . . . from this thy wickedness." But Baptism is a sacrament as stated above (Question [66], Article [1]). Therefore for the same reason Penance is also a sacrament. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in capite supra dicto, sacramentum est in aliqua celebratione, cum res gesta ita fit ut aliquid significative accipiamus quod sancte accipiendum est. Manifestum est autem quod in poenitentia ita res gesta fit quod aliquid sanctum significatur, tam ex parte peccatoris poenitentis, quam ex parte sacerdotis absolventis, nam peccator poenitens per ea quae agit et dicit, significat cor suum a peccato recessisse; similiter etiam sacerdos per ea quae agit et dicit circa poenitentem, significat opus Dei remittentis peccatum. Unde manifestum est quod poenitentia quae in Ecclesia agitur, est sacramentum. | I answer that, As Gregory says [*Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19], "a sacrament consists in a solemn act, whereby something is so done that we understand it to signify the holiness which it confers." Now it is evident that in Penance something is done so that something holy is signified both on the part of the penitent sinner, and on the part of the priest absolving, because the penitent sinner, by deed and word, shows his heart to have renounced sin, and in like manner the priest, by his deed and word with regard to the penitent, signifies the work of God Who forgives his sins. Therefore it is evident that Penance, as practiced in the Church, is a sacrament. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nomine corporalium rerum intelliguntur large etiam ipsi exteriores actus sensibiles, qui ita se habent in hoc sacramento sicut aqua in Baptismo vel chrisma in confirmatione. Est autem attendendum quod in illis sacramentis in quibus confertur excellens gratia, quae superabundat omnem facultatem humani actus, adhibetur aliqua corporalis materia exterius; sicut in Baptismo, ubi fit plena remissio peccatorum et quantum ad culpam et quantum ad poenam; et in confirmatione, ubi datur spiritus sancti plenitudo; et in extrema unctione, ubi confertur perfecta sanitas spiritualis; quae provenit ex virtute Christi quasi ex quodam extrinseco principio. Unde si qui actus humani sunt in talibus sacramentis, non sunt de essentia materiae sacramentorum, sed dispositive se habent ad sacramenta. In illis autem sacramentis quae habent effectum correspondentem humanis actibus, ipsi actus humani sensibiles sunt loco materiae, ut accidit in poenitentia et matrimonio. Sicut etiam in medicinis corporalibus quaedam sunt res exterius adhibitae, sicut emplastra et electuaria; quaedam vero sunt actus sanandorum, puta exercitationes quaedam. | Reply to Objection 1: By corporeal things taken in a wide sense we may understand also external sensible actions, which are to this sacrament what water is to Baptism, or chrism to Confirmation. But it is to be observed that in those sacraments, whereby an exceptional grace surpassing altogether the proportion of a human act, is conferred, some corporeal matter is employed externally, e.g. in Baptism, which confers full remission of all sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, and in Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy Ghost is bestowed, and in Extreme Unction, which confers perfect spiritual health derived from the virtue of Christ as from an extrinsic principle. Wherefore, such human acts as are in these sacraments, are not the essential matter of the sacrament, but are dispositions thereto. On the other hand, in those sacraments whose effect corresponds to that of some human act, the sensible human act itself takes the place of matter, as in the case of Penance and Matrimony, even as in bodily medicines, some are applied externally, such as plasters and drugs, while others are acts of the person who seeks to be cured, such as certain exercises. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in sacramentis quae habent corporalem materiam, oportet quod illa materia adhibeatur a ministro Ecclesiae, qui gerit personam Christi, in signum quod excellentia virtutis in sacramento operantis est a Christo. In sacramento autem poenitentiae, sicut dictum est, sunt actus humani pro materia, qui proveniunt ex inspiratione interna. Unde materia non adhibetur a ministro, sed a Deo interius operante, sed complementum sacramenti exhibet minister, dum poenitentem absolvit. | Reply to Objection 2: In those sacraments which have a corporeal matter, this matter needs to be applied by a minister of the Church, who stands in the place of Christ, which denotes that the excellence of the power which operates in the sacraments is from Christ. But in the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (ad 1), human actions take the place of matter, and these actions proceed from internal inspiration, wherefore the matter is not applied by the minister, but by God working inwardly; while the minister furnishes the complement of the sacrament, when he absolves the penitent. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam in poenitentia est aliquid quod est sacramentum tantum, scilicet actus exercitus tam per peccatorem poenitentem, quam etiam per sacerdotem absolventem. Res autem et sacramentum est poenitentia interior peccatoris. Res autem tantum et non sacramentum est remissio peccati. Quorum primum totum simul sumptum est causa secundi; primum autem et secundum sunt causa tertii. | Reply to Objection 3: In Penance also, there is something which is sacrament only, viz. the acts performed outwardly both by the repentant sinner, and by the priest in giving absolution; that which is reality and sacrament is the sinner's inward repentance; while that which is reality, and not sacrament, is the forgiveness of sin. The first of these taken altogether is the cause of the second; and the first and second together are the cause of the third. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccata non sint propria materia huius sacramenti. Materia enim in aliis sacramentis per aliqua verba sanctificatur, et sanctificata effectum sacramenti operatur. Peccata autem non possunt sanctificari, eo quod contrariantur effectui sacramenti, qui est gratia remittens peccata. Ergo peccata non sunt materia propria huius sacramenti. | Objection 1: It would seem that sins are not the proper matter of this sacrament. Because, in the other sacraments, the matter is hallowed by the utterance of certain words, and being thus hallowed produces the sacramental effect. Now sins cannot be hallowed, for they are opposed to the effect of the sacrament, viz. grace which blots out sin. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, nullus potest inchoare novam vitam nisi eum veteris vitae poeniteat. Sed ad vetustatem vitae pertinent non solum peccata, sed etiam poenalitates praesentis vitae. Non ergo peccata sunt propria materia poenitentiae. | Objection 2: Further, Augustine says in his book De Poenitentia [Cf. Serm. cccli]: "No one can begin a new life, unless he repent of the old." Now not only sins but also the penalties of the present life belong to the old life. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of Penance. |
| Praeterea, peccatorum quoddam est originale, quoddam mortale, quoddam veniale. Sed poenitentiae sacramentum non ordinatur contra originale peccatum, quod tollitur per Baptismum; neque etiam contra veniale, quod tollitur per tunsionem pectoris, et aquam benedictam, et alia huiusmodi. Ergo peccata non sunt propria materia poenitentiae. | Objection 3: Further, sin is either original, mortal or venial. Now the sacrament of Penance is not ordained against original sin, for this is taken away by Baptism, [nor against mortal sin, for this is taken away by the sinner's confession]*, nor against venial sin, which is taken away by the beating of the breast and the sprinkling of holy water and the like. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of Penance. [*The words in brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition]. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, II Cor. XII, non egerunt poenitentiam super immunditia et fornicatione et impudicitia quam gesserunt. | On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:21): "(Who) have not done penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness, that they have committed." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est materia, scilicet proxima et remota, sicut statuae proxima materia est metallum, remota vero aqua. Dictum est autem quod proxima materia huius sacramenti sunt actus poenitentis, cuius materia sunt peccata, de quibus dolet, et quae confitetur, et pro quibus satisfacit. Unde relinquitur quod remota materia poenitentiae sunt peccata, non attentanda, sed detestanda et destruenda. | I answer that, Matter is twofold, viz. proximate and remote: thus the proximate matter of a statue is a metal, while the remote matter is water. Now it has been stated (Article [1], ad 1, ad 2), that the proximate matter of this sacrament consists in the acts of the penitent, the matter of which acts are the sins over which he grieves, which he confesses, and for which he satisfies. Hence it follows that sins are the remote matter of Penance, as a matter, not for approval, but for detestation, and destruction. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de proxima materia sacramenti. | Reply to Objection 1: This argument considers the proximate matter of a sacrament. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod vetus et mortalis vita est obiectum poenitentiae, non ratione poenae, sed ratione culpae annexae. | Reply to Objection 2: The old life that was subject to death is the object of Penance, not as regards the punishment, but as regards the guilt connected with it. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod poenitentia quodammodo est de quolibet peccatorum genere, non tamen eodem modo. Nam de peccato actuali mortali est poenitentia proprie et principaliter, proprie quidem, quia proprie dicimur poenitere de his quae nostra voluntate commisimus; principaliter autem, quia ad deletionem peccati mortalis hoc sacramentum est institutum. De peccatis autem venialibus est quaedam poenitentia proprie, inquantum sunt nostra voluntate facta, non tamen contra haec principaliter est hoc sacramentum institutum. De peccato vero originali poenitentia nec principaliter est, quia contra ipsum non ordinatur hoc sacramentum, sed magis Baptismus, nec etiam proprie, quia peccatum originale non est nostra voluntate peractum; nisi forte inquantum voluntas Adae reputatur nostra, secundum modum loquendi quo apostolus dicit, Rom. V, in quo omnes peccaverunt. Inquantum tamen accipitur poenitentia large pro quacumque detestatione rei praeteritae, potest dici poenitentia de peccato originali, sicut loquitur Augustinus in libro de poenitentia. | Reply to Objection 3: Penance regards every kind of sin in a way, but not each in the same way. Because Penance regards actual mortal sin properly and chiefly; properly, since, properly speaking, we are said to repent of what we have done of our own will; chiefly, since this sacrament was instituted chiefly for the blotting out of mortal sin. Penance regards venial sins, properly speaking indeed, in so far as they are committed of our own will, but this was not the chief purpose of its institution. But as to original sin, Penance regards it neither chiefly, since Baptism, and not Penance, is ordained against original sin, nor properly, because original sin is not done of our own will, except in so far as Adam's will is looked upon as ours, in which sense the Apostle says (Rm. 5:12): "In whom all have sinned." Nevertheless, Penance may be said to regard original sin, if we take it in a wide sense for any detestation of something past: in which sense Augustine uses the term in his book De Poenitentia (Serm. cccli). |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec non sit forma huius sacramenti, ego te absolvo. Formae enim sacramentorum ex institutione Christi et usu Ecclesiae habentur. Sed Christus non legitur hanc formam instituisse. Neque etiam in communi usu habetur, quinimmo in quibusdam absolutionibus quae in Ecclesia publice fiunt, sicut in prima et completorio et in cena domini, absolvens non utitur oratione indicativa, ut dicat, ego vos absolvo, sed oratione deprecativa, cum dicit, misereatur vestri omnipotens Deus, vel, absolutionem tribuat vobis omnipotens Deus. Ergo haec non est forma huius sacramenti, ego te absolvo. | Objection 1: It would seem that the form of this sacrament is not: "I absolve thee." Because the forms of the sacraments are received from Christ's institution and the Church's custom. But we do not read that Christ instituted this form. Nor is it in common use; in fact in certain absolutions which are given publicly in church (e.g. at Prime and Compline and on Maundy Thursday), absolution is given not in the indicative form by saying: "I absolve thee," but In the deprecatory form, by saying: "May Almighty God have mercy on you," or: "May Almighty God grant you absolution and forgiveness." Therefore the form of this sacrament is not: "I absolve thee." |
| Praeterea, Leo Papa dicit, indulgentia Dei nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequit obtineri. Loquitur autem de indulgentia Dei quae praestatur poenitentibus. Ergo forma huius sacramenti debet esse per modum deprecationis. | Objection 2: Further, Pope Leo says (Ep. cviii) that God's forgiveness cannot be obtained without the priestly supplications: and he is speaking there of God's forgiveness granted to the penitent. Therefore the form of this sacrament should be deprecatory. |
| Praeterea, idem est absolvere a peccato quod peccatum remittere. Sed solus Deus peccatum remittit, qui etiam solus interius a peccato mundat, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan. Ergo videtur quod solus Deus a peccato absolvat. Non ergo debet dicere sacerdos, ego te absolvo, sicut non dicit, ego tibi peccata remitto. | Objection 3: Further, to absolve from sin is the same as to remit sin. But God alone remits sin, for He alone cleanses man inwardly from sin, as Augustine says (Contra Donatist. v, 21). Therefore it seems that God alone absolves from sin. Therefore the priest should say not: "I absolve thee," as neither does he say: "I remit thy sins." |
| Praeterea, sicut dominus dedit potestatem discipulis absolvendi a peccatis, ita etiam dedit eis potestatem curandi infirmitates, scilicet ut Daemonia eiicerent et ut languores curarent, ut habetur Matth. X et Luc. IX. Sed sanando infirmos apostoli non utebantur his verbis, ego te sano, sed, sanet te dominus Iesus Christus. Ergo videtur quod sacerdotes, habentes potestatem apostolis a Christo traditam, non debeant uti hac forma verborum, ego te absolvo, sed, absolutionem praebeat tibi Christus. | Objection 4: Further, just as our Lord gave His disciples the power to absolve from sins, so also did He give them the power "to heal infirmities," "to cast out devils," and "to cure diseases" (Mt. 10:1; Lk. 9:1). Now the apostles, in healing the sick, did not use the words: "I heal thee," but: "The Lord Jesus Christ heal [Vulg.: 'heals'] thee," as Peter said to the palsied man (Acts 9:34). Therefore since priests have the power which Christ gave His apostles, it seems that they should not use the form: "I absolve thee," but: "May Christ absolve thee." |
| Praeterea, quidam hac forma utentes sic eam exponunt, ego te absolvo, idest, absolutum ostendo. Sed neque hoc sacerdos facere potest, nisi ei divinitus reveletur. Unde, ut legitur Matth. XVI, antequam Petro diceretur, quodcumque solveris super terram, erit etc., dictum est ei, beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed pater meus, qui in caelis est. Ergo videtur quod sacerdos cui non est facta revelatio, praesumptuose dicat, ego te absolvo, etiam si exponatur, idest, absolutum ostendo. | Objection 5: Further, some explain this form by stating that when they say: "I absolve thee," they mean "I declare you to be absolved." But neither can this be done by a priest unless it be revealed to him by God, wherefore, as we read in Mt. 16:19 before it was said to Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth," etc., it was said to him (Mt. 16:17): "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven." Therefore it seems presumptuous for a priest, who has received no revelation on the matter, to say: "I absolve thee," even if this be explained to mean: "I declare thee absolved." |
| Sed contra est quod, sicut dominus dixit discipulis, Matth. ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos, ita dixit Petro, Matth. XVI, quodcumque solveris. Sed sacerdos, auctoritate illorum verborum Christi fretus, dicit, ego te baptizo. Ergo, eadem auctoritate, dicere debet in hoc sacramento, ego te absolvo. | On the contrary, As our Lord said to His disciples (Mt. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them," etc., so did He say to Peter (Mt. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc. Now the priest, relying on the authority of those words of Christ, says: "I baptize thee." Therefore on the same authority he should say in this sacrament: "I absolve thee." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in qualibet re perfectio attribuitur formae. Dictum est autem supra quod hoc sacramentum perficitur per ea quae sunt ex parte sacerdotis. Unde oportet quod ea quae sunt ex parte poenitentis, sive sint verba sive facta, sint quaedam materia huius sacramenti, ea vero quae sunt ex parte sacerdotis, se habent per modum formae. | I answer that, The perfection of a thing is ascribed to its form. Now it has been stated above (Article [1], ad 2) that this sacrament is perfected by that which is done by the priest. Wherefore the part taken by the penitent, whether it consist of words or deeds, must needs be the matter of this sacrament, while the part taken by the priest, takes the place of the form. |
| Cum autem sacramenta novae legis efficiant quod figurant, ut supra dictum est; oportet quod forma sacramenti significet id quod in sacramento agitur, proportionaliter materiae sacramenti. Unde forma Baptismi est, ego te baptizo, et forma confirmationis, consigno te signo crucis et confirmo te chrismate salutis, eo quod huiusmodi sacramenta perficiuntur in usu materiae. In sacramento autem Eucharistiae, quod consistit in ipsa consecratione materiae, exprimitur veritas consecrationis, cum dicitur, hoc est corpus meum. | Now since the sacraments of the New Law accomplish what they signify, as stated above (Question [62], Article [1], ad 1), it behooves the sacramental form to signify the sacramental effect in a manner that is in keeping with the matter. Hence the form of Baptism is: "I baptize thee," and the form of Confirmation is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation," because these sacraments are perfected in the use of their matter: while in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration of the matter, the reality of the consecration is expressed in the words: "This is My Body." |
| Hoc autem sacramentum, scilicet poenitentiae, non consistit in consecratione alicuius materiae, nec in usu alicuius materiae sanctificatae, sed magis in remotione cuiusdam materiae, scilicet peccati, prout peccata dicuntur esse materia poenitentiae, ut ex supra dictis patet. Talis autem remotio significatur a sacerdote cum dicitur, ego te absolvo, nam peccata sunt quaedam vincula, secundum illud Proverb. V, iniquitates suae capiunt impium, et funibus peccatorum suorum quisque constringitur. Unde patet quod haec est convenientissima forma huius sacramenti, ego te absolvo. | Now this sacrament, namely the sacrament of Penance, consists not in the consecration of a matter, nor in the use of a hallowed matter, but rather in the removal of a certain matter, viz. sin, in so far as sins are said to be the matter of Penance, as explained above (Article [2]). This removal is expressed by the priest saying: "I absolve thee": because sins are fetters, according to Prov. 5:22. "His own iniquities catch the wicked, and he is fast bound with the ropes of his own sins." Wherefore it is evident that this is the most fitting form of this sacrament: "I absolve thee." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ista forma sumitur ex ipsis verbis Christi quibus Petro dixit, quodcumque solveris super terram, et cetera. Et tali forma utitur Ecclesia in sacramentali absolutione. Huiusmodi autem absolutiones in publico factae non sunt sacramentales, sed sunt orationes quaedam ordinatae ad remissionem venialium peccatorum. Unde in sacramentali absolutione non sufficeret dicere, misereatur tui omnipotens Deus, vel, absolutionem et remissionem tribuat tibi Deus, quia per haec verba sacerdos absolutionem non significat fieri, sed petit ut fiat. Praemittitur tamen etiam in sacramentali absolutione talis oratio, ne impediatur effectus sacramenti ex parte poenitentis, cuius actus materialiter se habent in hoc sacramento, non autem in Baptismo vel in confirmatione. | Reply to Objection 1: This form is taken from Christ's very words which He addressed to Peter (Mt. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc., and such is the form employed by the Church in sacramental absolution. But such absolutions as are given in public are not sacramental, but are prayers for the remission of venial sins. Wherefore in giving sacramental absolution it would not suffice to say: "May Almighty God have mercy on thee," or: "May God grant thee absolution and forgiveness," because by such words the priest does not signify the giving of absolution, but prays that it may be given. Nevertheless the above prayer is said before the sacramental absolution is given, lest the sacramental effect be hindered on the part of the penitent, whose acts are as matter in this sacrament, but not in Baptism or Confirmation. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum Leonis Papae est intelligendum quantum ad deprecationem quae praemittitur absolutioni. Non autem removet quin sacerdotes absolvant. | Reply to Objection 2: The words of Leo are to be understood of the prayer that precedes the absolution, and do not exclude the fact that the priest pronounces absolution. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod solus Deus per auctoritatem et a peccato absolvit et peccata remittit. Sacerdotes autem utrumque faciunt per ministerium, inquantum scilicet verba sacerdotis in hoc sacramento instrumentaliter operantur, sicut etiam in aliis sacramentis; nam virtus divina est quae interius operatur in omnibus sacramentalibus signis, sive sint res sive sint verba, sicut ex supra dictis patet. Unde et dominus utrumque expressit, nam Matth. XVI dixit Petro, quodcumque solveris super terram, etc.; et Ioan. XX dixit discipulis, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis. Ideo tamen sacerdos potius dicit, ego te absolvo, quam, ego tibi peccata remitto, quia hoc magis congruit verbis quae dominus dixit virtutem clavium ostendens, per quas sacerdotes absolvunt. Quia tamen sacerdos sicut minister absolvit, convenienter apponitur aliquid quod pertineat ad primam auctoritatem Dei, scilicet ut dicatur, ego te absolvo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, vel, per virtutem passionis Christi, vel, auctoritate Dei, sicut Dionysius exponit, XIII cap. Caelest. Hier. Quia tamen hoc non est determinatum ex verbis Christi, sicut in Baptismo, talis appositio relinquitur arbitrio sacerdotis. | Reply to Objection 3: God alone absolves from sin and forgives sins authoritatively; yet priests do both ministerially, because the words of the priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine power, as in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power that works inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or words, as shown above (Question [62], Article [4]; Question [64], Articles [1],2). Wherefore our Lord expressed both: for He said to Peter (Mt. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc., and to His disciples (Jn. 20:23): "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Yet the priest says: "I absolve thee," rather than: "I forgive thee thy sins," because it is more in keeping with the words of our Lord, by expressing the power of the keys whereby priests absolve. Nevertheless, since the priest absolves ministerially, something is suitably added in reference to the supreme authority of God, by the priest saying: "I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," or by the power of Christ's Passion, or by the authority of God. However, as this is not defined by the words of Christ, as it is for Baptism, this addition is left to the discretion of the priest. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod apostolis non est data potestas ut ipsi sanarent infirmos, sed ut ad eorum orationem infirmi sanarentur. Est autem eis collata potestas operandi instrumentaliter, sive ministerialiter, in sacramentis. Et ideo magis possunt in formis sacramentalibus exprimere actum suum quam in sanationibus infirmitatum. In quibus tamen non semper utebantur modo deprecativo, sed quandoque etiam modo indicativo et imperativo, sicut Act. III legitur quod Petrus dixit claudo, quod habeo, hoc tibi do. In nomine Iesu Christi, surge et ambula. | Reply to Objection 4: Power was given to the apostles, not that they themselves might heal the sick, but that the sick might be healed at the prayer of the apostles: whereas power was given to them to work instrumentally or ministerially in the sacraments; wherefore they could express their own agency in the sacramental forms rather than in the healing of infirmities. Nevertheless in the latter case they did not always use the deprecatory form, but sometimes employed the indicative or imperative: thus we read (Acts 3:6) that Peter said to the lame man: "What I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk." |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod ista expositio, ego te absolvo, idest, absolutum ostendo, quantum ad aliquid quidem vera est, non tamen est perfecta. Sacramenta enim novae legis non solum significant, sed etiam faciunt quod significant. Unde sicut sacerdos, baptizando aliquem, ostendit hominem interius ablutum per verba et facta, non solum significative, sed etiam effective; ita etiam cum dicit, ego te absolvo, ostendit hominem absolutum non solum significative, sed etiam effective. Nec tamen loquitur quasi de re incerta. Quia sicut alia sacramenta novae legis habent de se certum effectum ex virtute passionis Christi, licet possit impediri ex parte recipientis, ita etiam est et in hoc sacramento. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de Adult. Coniug., non est turpis nec difficilis post patrata et purgata adulteria reconciliatio coniugii, ubi per claves regni caelorum non dubitatur fieri remissio peccatorum. Unde nec sacerdos indiget speciali revelatione sibi facta, sed sufficit generalis revelatio fidei, per quam remittuntur peccata. Unde revelatio fidei dicitur Petro facta fuisse. | Reply to Objection 5: It is true in a sense that the words, "I absolve thee" mean "I declare thee absolved," but this explanation is incomplete. Because the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but effect what they signify. Wherefore, just as the priest in baptizing anyone, declares by deed and word that the person is washed inwardly, and this not only significatively but also effectively, so also when he says: "I absolve thee," he declares the man to be absolved not only significatively but also effectively. And yet he does not speak as of something uncertain, because just as the other sacraments of the New Law have, of themselves, a sure effect through the power of Christ's Passion, which effect, nevertheless, may be impeded on the part of the recipient, so is it with this sacrament. Hence Augustine says (De Adult. Conjug. ii): "There is nothing disgraceful or onerous in the reconciliation of husband and wife, when adultery committed has been washed away, since there is no doubt that remission of sins is granted through the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Consequently there is no need for a special revelation to be made to the priest, but the general revelation of faith suffices, through which sins are forgiven. Hence the revelation of faith is said to have been made to Peter. |
| Esset autem perfectior expositio, ego te absolvo, idest, sacramentum absolutionis tibi impendo. | It would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, "I absolve thee" mean: "I grant thee the sacrament of absolution." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod impositio manuum sacerdotis requiratur ad hoc sacramentum. Dicitur enim Marc. ult., super aegros manus imponent, et bene habebunt. Aegri autem spiritualiter sunt peccatores, qui recipiunt bonam habitudinem per hoc sacramentum. Ergo in hoc sacramento est manus impositio facienda. | Objection 1: It would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (Mk. 16:18): "They shall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover." Now sinners are sick spiritually, and obtain recovery through this sacrament. Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, in sacramento poenitentiae recuperat homo spiritum sanctum amissum, unde ex persona poenitentis dicitur in Psalmo, redde mihi laetitiam salutaris tui, et spiritu principali confirma me. Sed spiritus sanctus datur per impositionem manuum, legitur enim Act. VIII, quod apostoli imponebant manus super illos, et accipiebant spiritum sanctum; et Matth. XIX dicitur quod oblati sunt domino parvuli ut eis manus imponeret. Ergo in hoc sacramento est manus impositio facienda. | Objection 2: Further, in this sacrament man regains the Holy Ghost Whom he had lost, wherefore it is said in the person of the penitent (Ps. 1:14): "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me with a perfect spirit." Now the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition of hands; for we read (Acts 8:17) that the apostles "laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost"; and (Mt. 19:13) that "little children were presented" to our Lord, "that He should impose hands upon them." Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, verba sacerdotis in hoc sacramento non sunt maioris efficaciae quam in aliis sacramentis. Sed in aliis sacramentis non sufficiunt verba ministri, nisi aliquem actum exerceret, sicut in Baptismo, simul cum hoc quod dicit sacerdos, ego te baptizo, requiritur corporalis ablutio. Ergo etiam, simul cum hoc quod dicit sacerdos, ego te absolvo, oportet quod aliquem actum exerceat circa poenitentem, imponendo ei manus. | Objection 3: Further, the priest's words are not more efficacious in this than in the other sacraments. But in the other sacraments the words of the minister do not suffice, unless he perform some action: thus, in Baptism, the priest while saying: "I baptize thee," has to perform a bodily washing. Therefore, also while saying: "I absolve thee," the priest should perform some action in regard to the penitent, by laying hands on him. |
| Sed contra est quod dominus dixit Petro, quodcumque solveris super terram, erit etc., nullam mentionem de manus impositione faciens. Neque etiam cum omnibus apostolis simul dixit, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis. Non ergo ad hoc sacramentum requiritur impositio manuum. | On the contrary, When our Lord said to Peter (Mt. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc., He made no mention of an imposition of hands; nor did He when He said to all the apostles (Jn. 20:13): "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod impositio manuum in sacramentis Ecclesiae fit ad designandum aliquem copiosum effectum gratiae, quo illi quibus manus imponitur, quodammodo continuantur per quandam similitudinem ministris, in quibus copia esse debet. Et ideo manus impositio fit in sacramento confirmationis, in quo confertur plenitudo spiritus sancti; et in sacramento ordinis, in quo confertur quaedam excellentia potestatis in divinis ministeriis; unde et II Tim. I dicitur, resuscites gratiam Dei quae est in te per impositionem manuum mearum. | I answer that, In the sacraments of the Church the imposition of hands is made, to signify some abundant effect of grace, through those on whom the hands are laid being, as it were, united to the ministers in whom grace should be plentiful. Wherefore an imposition of hands is made in the sacrament of Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy Ghost is conferred; and in the sacrament of order, wherein is bestowed a certain excellence of power over the Divine mysteries; hence it is written (2 Tim. 1:6): "Stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands." |
| Sacramentum autem poenitentiae non ordinatur ad consequendum aliquam excellentiam gratiae, sed ad remissionem peccatorum. Et ideo ad hoc sacramentum non requiritur impositio, sicut etiam nec ad Baptismum, in quo tamen fit plenior remissio peccatorum. | Now the sacrament of Penance is ordained, not that man may receive some abundance of grace, but that his sins may be taken away; and therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament, as neither is there for Baptism, wherein nevertheless a fuller remission of sins is bestowed. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa manus impositio non est sacramentalis, sed ordinatur ad miracula facienda, ut scilicet per contactum manus hominis sanctificati etiam corporalis infirmitas tollatur. Sicut etiam legitur de domino, Marci VI, quod infirmos impositis manibus curavit; et Matth. VIII legitur quod per contactum leprosum mundavit. | Reply to Objection 1: That imposition of hands is not sacramental, but is intended for the working of miracles, namely, that by the contact of a sanctified man's hand, even bodily infirmity might be removed; even as we read of our Lord (Mk. 6:5) that He cured the sick, "laying His hands upon them," and (Mt. 8:3) that He cleansed a leper by touching him. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod non quaelibet acceptio spiritus sancti requirit manus impositionem, quia etiam in Baptismo accipit homo spiritum sanctum, nec tamen fit ibi manus impositio. Sed acceptio spiritus sancti cum plenitudine requirit manus impositionem, quod pertinet ad confirmationem. | Reply to Objection 2: It is not every reception of the Holy Ghost that requires an imposition of hands, since even in Baptism man receives the Holy Ghost, without any imposition of hands: it is at the reception of the fulness of the Holy Ghost which belongs to Confirmation that an imposition of hands is required. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in sacramentis quae perficiuntur in usu materiae, minister habet aliquem corporalem actum exercere circa eum qui suscipit sacramentum, sicut in Baptismo et confirmatione et extrema unctione. Sed hoc sacramentum non consistit in usu alicuius materiae exterius appositae, sed loco materiae se habent ea quae sunt ex parte poenitentis. Unde, sicut in Eucharistia sacerdos sola prolatione verborum super materiam perficit sacramentum, ita etiam sola verba sacerdotis absolventis super poenitentem perficiunt absolutionis sacramentum. Et si aliquis actus corporalis esset ex parte sacerdotis, non minus competeret crucesignatio, quae adhibetur in Eucharistia, quam manus impositio, in signum quod per sanguinem crucis Christi remittuntur peccata. Et tamen non est de necessitate sacramenti, sicut nec de necessitate Eucharistiae. | Reply to Objection 3: In those sacraments which are perfected in the use of the matter, the minister has to perform some bodily action on the recipient of the sacrament, e.g. in Baptism, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction; whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use of matter employed outwardly, the matter being supplied by the part taken by the penitent: wherefore, just as in the Eucharist the priest perfects the sacrament by merely pronouncing the words over the matter, so the mere words which the priest while absolving pronounces over the penitent perfect the sacrament of absolution. If, indeed, any bodily act were necessary on the part of the priest, the sign of the cross, which is employed in the Eucharist, would not be less becoming than the imposition of hands, in token that sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ crucified; and yet this is not essential to this sacrament as neither is it to the Eucharist. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc sacramentum non sit de necessitate salutis. Quia super illud Psalmi, qui seminant in lacrimis etc., dicit Glossa, noli esse tristis, si adsit tibi bona voluntas, unde metitur pax. Sed tristitia est de ratione poenitentiae, secundum illud II Cor. VII, quae secundum Deum est tristitia, poenitentiam in salutem stabilem operatur. Ergo bona voluntas, sine poenitentia, sufficit ad salutem. | Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for salvation. Because on Ps. 125:5, "They that sow in tears," etc., the gloss says: "Be not sorrowful, if thou hast a good will, of which peace is the meed." But sorrow is essential to Penance, according to 2 Cor. 7:10: "The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation." Therefore a good will without Penance suffices for salvation. |
| Praeterea, Proverb. X dicitur, universa delicta operit caritas; et infra, XV, per misericordiam et fidem purgantur peccata. Sed hoc sacramentum non est nisi ad purgandum peccata. Ergo, habendo caritatem et fidem et misericordiam, potest quisque salutem consequi, etiam sine poenitentiae sacramento. | Objection 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Charity covereth all sins," and further on (Prov. 15:27): "By mercy and faith sins are purged away." But this sacrament is for nothing else but the purging of sins. Therefore if one has charity, faith, and mercy, one can obtain salvation, without the sacrament of Penance. |
| Praeterea, sacramenta Ecclesiae initium habent ab institutione Christi. Sed, sicut legitur Ioan. VIII, Christus mulierem adulteram absolvit absque poenitentia. Ergo videtur quod poenitentia non sit de necessitate salutis. | Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church take their origin from the institution of Christ. But according to Jn. 8 Christ absolved the adulterous woman without Penance. Therefore it seems that Penance is not necessary for salvation. |
| Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Luc. XIII, si poenitentiam non egeritis, omnes simul peribitis. | On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 13:3): "Unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid est necessarium ad salutem dupliciter, uno modo, absolute; alio modo, ex suppositione. Absolute quidem necessarium est illud sine quo nullus salutem consequi potest, sicut gratia Christi, et sacramentum Baptismi, per quod aliquis in Christo renascitur. Ex suppositione autem est necessarium sacramentum poenitentiae, quod quidem necessarium non est omnibus, sed peccato subiacentibus; dicitur enim in II Paralip. ult., et tu, domine iustorum, non posuisti poenitentiam iustis, Abraham, Isaac et Iacob, his qui tibi non peccaverunt. Peccatum autem, cum consummatum fuerit, generat mortem, ut dicitur Iac. I. Et ideo necessarium est ad salutem peccatoris quod peccatum removeatur ab eo. Quod quidem fieri non potest sine poenitentiae sacramento, in quo operatur virtus passionis Christi per absolutionem sacerdotis simul cum opere poenitentis, qui cooperatur gratiae ad destructionem peccati, sicut enim dicit Augustinus, super Ioan., qui creavit te sine te, non iustificabit te sine te. Unde patet quod sacramentum poenitentiae est necessarium ad salutem post peccatum, sicut medicatio corporalis postquam homo in morbum periculosum inciderit. | I answer that, A thing is necessary for salvation in two ways: first, absolutely; secondly, on a supposition. A thing is absolutely necessary for salvation, if no one can obtain salvation without it, as, for example, the grace of Christ, and the sacrament of Baptism, whereby a man is born again in Christ. The sacrament of Penance is necessary on a supposition, for it is necessary, not for all, but for those who are in sin. For it is written (2 Paral 37 [*The prayer of Manasses, among the Apocrypha]), "Thou, Lord, God of the righteous, hast not appointed repentance to the righteous, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor to those who sinned not against Thee." But "sin, when it is completed, begetteth death" (James 1:15). Consequently it is necessary for the sinner's salvation that sin be taken away from him; which cannot be done without the sacrament of Penance, wherein the power of Christ's Passion operates through the priest's absolution and the acts of the penitent, who co-operates with grace unto the destruction of his sin. For as Augustine says (Tract. lxxii in Joan. [*Implicitly in the passage referred to, but explicitly Serm. xv de verb Apost.]), "He Who created thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee." Therefore it is evident that after sin the sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation, even as bodily medicine after man has contracted a dangerous disease. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Glossa illa videtur intelligenda de eo cui adest bona voluntas sine interpolatione quae fit per peccatum, tales autem non habent tristitiae causam. Sed ex quo bona voluntas tollitur per peccatum, non potest restitui sine tristitia, qua quis dolet de peccato praeterito, quod pertinet ad poenitentiam. | Reply to Objection 1: This gloss should apparently be understood as referring to the man who has a good will unimpaired by sin, for such a man has no cause for sorrow: but as soon as the good will is forfeited through sin, it cannot be restored without that sorrow whereby a man sorrows for his past sin, and which belongs to Penance. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ex quo aliquis peccatum incurrit, caritas et fides et misericordia non liberant hominem a peccato sine poenitentia. Requirit enim caritas quod homo doleat de offensa in amicum commissa, et quod amico homo reconciliari studeat. Requirit etiam ipsa fides ut per virtutem passionis Christi, quae in sacramentis Ecclesiae operatur, quaerat iustificari a peccatis. Requirit etiam ipsa misericordia ordinata ut homo subveniat poenitendo suae miseriae, quam per peccatum incurrit, secundum illud Proverb. XIV, miseros facit populos peccatum, unde et Eccli. XXX dicitur, miserere animae tuae placens Deo. | Reply to Objection 2: As soon as a man falls into sin, charity, faith, and mercy do not deliver him from sin, without Penance. Because charity demands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against his friend, and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction to his friend; faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his sins through the power of Christ's Passion which operates in the sacraments of the Church; and well-ordered pity necessitates that man should succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into which sin has brought him, according to Prov. 14:34: "Sin maketh nations miserable"; wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 30:24): "Have pity on thy own soul, pleasing God." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ad potestatem excellentiae, quam solus Christus habuit, ut supra dictum est, pertinuit quod Christus effectum sacramenti poenitentiae, qui est remissio peccatorum, contulit mulieri adulterae sine poenitentiae sacramento, licet non sine interiori poenitentia, quam ipse in ea per gratiam est operatus. | Reply to Objection 3: It was due to His power of "excellence," which He alone had, as stated above (Question [64], Article [3]), that Christ bestowed on the adulterous woman the effect of the sacrament of Penance, viz. the forgiveness of sins, without the sacrament of Penance, although not without internal repentance, which He operated in her by grace. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod poenitentia non sit secunda tabula post naufragium. Quia super illud Isaiae III, peccatum suum sicut Sodoma praedicaverunt, dicit Glossa, secunda tabula post naufragium est peccata abscondere. Poenitentia autem non abscondit peccata, sed magis ea revelat. Ergo poenitentia non est secunda tabula. | Objection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a second plank after shipwreck. Because on Is. 3:9, "They have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom," a gloss says: "The second plank after shipwreck is to hide one's sins." Now Penance does not hide sins, but reveals them. Therefore Penance is not a second plank. |
| Praeterea, fundamentum in aedificio non tenet secundum, sed primum locum. Poenitentia autem in spirituali aedificio est fundamentum, secundum illud Heb. VI, non rursum iacientes fundamentum poenitentiae ab operibus mortuis. Unde et praecedit ipsum Baptismum, secundum illud Act. II, poenitentiam agite, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum. Ergo poenitentia non debet dici secunda tabula. | Objection 2: Further, in a building the foundation takes the first, not the second place. Now in the spiritual edifice, Penance is the foundation, according to Heb. 6:1: "Not laying again the foundation of Penance from dead works"; wherefore it precedes even Baptism, according to Acts 2:38: "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you." Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank. |
| Praeterea, omnia sacramenta sunt quaedam tabulae, idest remedia contra peccatum. Sed poenitentia non tenet secundum locum inter sacramenta, sed magis quartum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo poenitentia non debet dici secunda tabula post naufragium. | Objection 3: Further, all the sacraments are planks, i.e. helps against sin. Now Penance holds, not the second but the fourth, place among the sacraments, as is clear from what has been said above (Question [65], Articles [1],2). Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank after shipwreck. |
| Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit quod secunda tabula post naufragium est poenitentia. | On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. cxxx) that "Penance is a second plank after shipwreck." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod id quod est per se, naturaliter prius est eo quod est per accidens, sicut et substantia prior est accidente. Sacramenta autem quaedam per se ordinantur ad salutem hominis, sicut Baptismus, qui est spiritualis generatio, et confirmatio, quae est spirituale augmentum, et Eucharistia, quae est spirituale nutrimentum. Poenitentia autem ordinatur ad salutem hominis quasi per accidens, supposito quodam, scilicet ex suppositione peccati. Nisi enim homo peccaret actualiter, poenitentia non indigeret, indigeret tamen Baptismo et confirmatione et Eucharistia, sicut et in vita corporali non indigeret homo medicatione nisi infirmaretur, indiget autem homo per se ad vitam generatione, augmento et nutrimento. | I answer that, That which is of itself precedes naturally that which is accidental, as substance precedes accident. Now some sacraments are, of themselves, ordained to man's salvation, e.g. Baptism, which is the spiritual birth, Confirmation which is the spiritual growth, the Eucharist which is the spiritual food; whereas Penance is ordained to man's salvation accidentally as it were, and on something being supposed, viz. sin: for unless man were to sin actually, he would not stand in need of Penance and yet he would need Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; even as in the life of the body, man would need no medical treatment, unless he were ill, and yet life, birth, growth, and food are, of themselves, necessary to man. |
| Et ideo poenitentia tenet secundum locum respectu status integritatis, qui confertur et conservatur per sacramenta praedicta. Unde metaphorice dicitur secunda tabula post naufragium. Nam primum remedium mare transeuntibus est ut conserventur in navi integra, secundum autem remedium est, post navim fractam, ut aliquis tabulae adhaereat. Ita etiam primum remedium in mari huius vitae est quod homo integritatem servet, secundum autem remedium est, si per peccatum integritatem perdiderit, quod per poenitentiam redeat. | Consequently Penance holds the second place with regard to the state of integrity which is bestowed and safeguarded by the aforesaid sacraments, so that it is called metaphorically "a second plank after shipwreck." For just as the first help for those who cross the sea is to be safeguarded in a whole ship, while the second help when the ship is wrecked, is to cling to a plank; so too the first help in this life's ocean is that man safeguard his integrity, while the second help is, if he lose his integrity through sin, that he regain it by means of Penance. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod abscondere peccata contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, dum ipsa peccata fiunt. Est autem peius peccare publice quam occulte, tum quia peccator publicus videtur ex contemptu maiori peccare; tum etiam quia peccat cum scandalo aliorum. Et ideo est quoddam remedium in peccatis quod aliquis in occulto peccet. Et secundum hoc dicit Glossa quod secunda tabula post naufragium est peccata abscondere, non quod per hoc tollatur peccatum, sicut per poenitentiam; sed quia per hoc peccatum fit minus. Alio modo, aliquis abscondit peccatum prius factum per negligentiam confessionis. Et hoc contrariatur poenitentiae. Et sic abscondere peccatum non est secunda tabula, sed magis contrarium tabulae, dicitur enim Proverb. XXVIII, qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur. | Reply to Objection 1: To hide one's sins may happen in two ways: first, in the very act of sinning. Now it is worse to sin in public than in private, both because a public sinner seems to sin more from contempt, and because by sinning he gives scandal to others. Consequently in sin it is a kind of remedy to sin secretly, and it is in this sense that the gloss says that "to hide one's sins is a second plank after shipwreck"; not that it takes away sin, as Penance does, but because it makes the sin less grievous. Secondly, one hides one's sin previously committed, by neglecting to confess it: this is opposed to Penance, and to hide one's sins thus is not a second plank, but is the reverse, since it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his sins shall not prosper." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod poenitentia non potest dici fundamentum spiritualis aedificii simpliciter, idest in prima aedificatione, sed est fundamentum in secunda reaedificatione, quae fit post destructionem peccati; nam primo redeuntibus ad Deum occurrit poenitentia. Apostolus tamen ibi loquitur de fundamento spiritualis doctrinae. Poenitentia autem quae Baptismum praecedit, non est poenitentiae sacramentum. | Reply to Objection 2: Penance cannot be called the foundation of the spiritual edifice simply, i.e. in the first building thereof; but it is the foundation in the second building which is accomplished by destroying sin, because man, on his return to God, needs Penance first. However, the Apostle is speaking there of the foundation of spiritual doctrine. Moreover, the penance which precedes Baptism is not the sacrament of Penance. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod tria praecedentia sacramenta pertinent ad navem integram, idest ad statum integritatis, respectu cuius poenitentia dicitur secunda tabula. | Reply to Objection 3: The three sacraments which precede Penance refer to the ship in its integrity, i.e. to man's state of integrity, with regard to which Penance is called a second plank. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc sacramentum non fuerit convenienter institutum in nova lege. Ea enim quae sunt de iure naturali, institutione non indigent. Sed poenitere de malis quae quis gessit, est de iure naturali, non enim potest aliquis bonum diligere quin de contrario doleat. Ergo non est poenitentia convenienter instituta in nova lege. | Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament was unsuitably instituted in the New Law. Because those things which belong to the natural law need not to be instituted. Now it belongs to the natural law that one should repent of the evil one has done: for it is impossible to love good without grieving for its contrary. Therefore Penance was unsuitably instituted in the New Law. |
| Praeterea, illud quod fuit in veteri lege, instituendum non fuit. Sed etiam in veteri lege fuit poenitentia, unde et dominus conqueritur, Ierem. VIII, dicens, nullus est qui agat poenitentiam super peccato suo, dicens, quid feci? Ergo poenitentia non debuit institui in nova lege. | Objection 2: Further, that which existed in the Old Law had not to be instituted in the New. Now there was Penance in the old Law wherefore the Lord complains (Jer. 8:6) saying: "There is none that doth penance for his sin, saying: What have I done?" Therefore Penance should not have been instituted in the New Law. |
| Praeterea, poenitentia consequenter se habet ad Baptismum, cum sit secunda tabula, ut supra dictum est. Sed poenitentia videtur a domino instituta ante Baptismum, nam in principio praedicationis suae legitur dominus dixisse, Matth. IV, poenitentiam agite, appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum. Ergo hoc sacramentum non fuit convenienter institutum in nova lege. | Objection 3: Further, Penance comes after Baptism, since it is a second plank, as stated above (Article [6]). Now it seems that our Lord instituted Penance before Baptism, because we read that at the beginning of His preaching He said (Mt. 4:17): "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Therefore this sacrament was not suitably instituted in the New Law. |
| Praeterea, sacramenta novae legis institutionem habent a Christo, ex cuius virtute operantur, ut supra dictum est. Sed Christus non videtur instituisse hoc sacramentum, cum ipse non sit usus eo, sicut aliis sacramentis quae ipse instituit. Ergo hoc sacramentum non fuit convenienter institutum in nova lege. | Objection 4: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ, by Whose power they work, as stated above (Question [62], Article [5]; Question [64], Article [1]). But Christ does not seem to have instituted this sacrament, since He made no use of it, as of the other sacraments which He instituted. Therefore this sacrament was unsuitably instituted in the New Law. |
| Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Luc. ult., oportebat Christum pati, et resurgere a mortuis die tertia, et praedicari in nomine eius poenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum in omnes gentes. | On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 24:46,47): "It behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day: and that penance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, in hoc sacramento actus poenitentis se habet sicut materia; id autem quod est ex parte sacerdotis, qui operatur ut minister Christi, se habet ut formale et completivum sacramenti. Materia vero, etiam in aliis sacramentis, praeexistit a natura, ut aqua, vel ab aliqua arte, ut panis, sed quod talis materia ad sacramentum assumatur, indiget institutione hoc determinante. Sed forma sacramenti, et virtus ipsius, totaliter est ex institutione Christi, ex cuius passione procedit virtus sacramentorum. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [1], ad 1, ad 2), in this sacrament the acts of the penitent are as matter, while the part taken by the priest, who works as Christ's minister, is the formal and completive element of the sacrament. Now in the other sacraments the matter pre-exists, being provided by nature, as water, or by art, as bread: but that such and such a matter be employed for a sacrament requires to be decided by the institution; while the sacrament derives its form and power entirely from the institution of Christ, from Whose Passion the power of the sacraments proceeds. |
| Sic igitur materia praeexistit a natura, ex naturali enim ratione homo movetur ad poenitendum de malis quae fecit, sed quod hoc vel illo modo homo poenitentiam agat, est ex institutione divina. Unde et dominus, in principio praedicationis suae, indixit hominibus ut non solum poeniterent, sed etiam poenitentiam agerent, significans determinatos modos actuum qui requiruntur ad hoc sacramentum. Sed id quod pertinet ad officium ministrorum, determinavit Matth. XVI, ubi dixit Petro, tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, et cetera. Efficaciam autem huius sacramenti, et originem virtutis eius, manifestavit post resurrectionem, Luc. ult., ubi dixit quod oportebat praedicari in nomine eius poenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum in omnes gentes, praemisso de passione et resurrectione, virtute enim nominis Iesu Christi patientis et resurgentis hoc sacramentum efficaciam habet ad remissionem peccatorum. | Accordingly the matter of this sacrament pre-exists, being provided by nature; since it is by a natural principle of reason that man is moved to repent of the evil he has done: yet it is due to Divine institution that man does penance in this or that way. Wherefore at the outset of His preaching, our Lord admonished men, not only to repent, but also to "do penance," thus pointing to the particular manner of actions required for this sacrament. As to the part to be taken by the ministers, this was fixed by our Lord when He said to Peter (Mt. 16:19): "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc.; but it was after His resurrection that He made known the efficacy of this sacrament and the source of its power, when He said (Lk. 24:47) that "penance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations," after speaking of His Passion and resurrection. Because it is from the power of the name of Jesus Christ suffering and rising again that this sacrament is efficacious unto the remission of sins. |
| Et sic patet convenienter hoc sacramentum in nova lege fuisse institutum. | It is therefore evident that this sacrament was suitably instituted in the New Law. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de iure naturali est quod aliquis poeniteat de malis quae fecit, quantum ad hoc quod doleat se fecisse, et doloris remedium quaerat per aliquem modum, et quod etiam aliqua signa doloris ostendat, sicut Ninivitae fecerunt, ut legitur Ionae III. In quibus tamen aliquid fuit adiunctum fidei quam ceperant ex praedicatione Ionae, ut scilicet hoc agerent sub spe veniae consequendae a Deo, secundum illud quod legitur ibi, quis scit si convertatur et ignoscat Deus, et revertatur a furore irae suae, et non peribimus? Sed, sicut alia quae sunt de iure naturali determinationem acceperunt ex institutione legis divinae, ut in secunda parte dictum est, ita etiam et poenitentia. | Reply to Objection 1: It is a natural law that one should repent of the evil one has done, by grieving for having done it, and by seeking a remedy for one's grief in some way or other, and also that one should show some signs of grief, even as the Ninevites did, as we read in Jn. 3. And yet even in their case there was also something of faith which they had received through Jonas' preaching, inasmuch as they did these things in the hope that they would receive pardon from God, according as we read (Jn. 3:9): "Who can tell if God will turn and forgive, and will turn away from His fierce anger, and we shall not perish?" But just as other matters which are of the natural law were fixed in detail by the institution of the Divine law, as we have stated in the FS, Question [91], Article [4]; FS, Question [95], Article [2]; FS, Question [99], so was it with Penance. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ea quae sunt iuris naturalis diversimode determinationem accipiunt in veteri et nova lege, secundum quod congruit imperfectioni veteris legis et perfectioni novae. Unde et poenitentia in veteri lege aliquam determinationem habuit. Quantum quidem ad dolorem, ut esset magis in corde quam in exterioribus signis, secundum illud Ioel II, scindite corda vestra, et non vestimenta vestra. Quantum autem ad remedium doloris quaerendum, ut aliquo modo ministris Dei peccata sua confiterentur, ad minus in generali, unde dominus, Levit. V, dicit, anima quae peccaverit per ignorantiam, offeret arietem immaculatum de gregibus sacerdoti, iuxta mensuram aestimationemque peccati, qui orabit pro eo quod nesciens fecerit, et dimittetur ei; in hoc enim ipso quod oblationem faciebat aliquis pro peccato suo, quodammodo peccatum suum sacerdoti confitebatur; et secundum hoc dicitur Proverb. XXVIII, qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur, qui autem confessus fuerit et reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Nondum autem instituta erat potestas clavium, quae a passione Christi derivatur. Et per consequens nondum erat institutum quod aliquis doleret de peccato cum proposito subiiciendi se per confessionem et satisfactionem clavibus Ecclesiae, sub spe consequendae veniae virtute passionis Christi. | Reply to Objection 2: Things which are of the natural law were determined in various ways in the old and in the New Law, in keeping with the imperfection of the old, and the perfection of the New. Wherefore Penance was fixed in a certain way in the Old Law---with regard to sorrow, that it should be in the heart rather than in external signs, according to Joel 2:13: "Rend your hearts and not your garments"; and with regard to seeking a remedy for sorrow, that they should in some way confess their sins, at least in general, to God's ministers. Wherefore the Lord said (Lev. 5:17,18): "If anyone sin through ignorance . . . he shall offer of the flocks a ram without blemish to the priest, according to the measure and estimation of the sin, and the priest shall pray for him, because he did it ignorantly, and it shall be forgiven him"; since by the very fact of making an offering for his sin, a man, in a fashion, confessed his sin to the priest. And accordingly it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his sins, shall not prosper: but he that shall confess, and forsake them, shall obtain mercy." Not yet, however, was the power of the keys instituted, which is derived from Christ's Passion, and consequently it was not yet ordained that a man should grieve for his sin, with the purpose of submitting himself by confession and satisfaction to the keys of the Church, in the hope of receiving forgiveness through the power of Christ's Passion. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, si quis recte consideret ea quae dominus dixit de necessitate Baptismi, Ioan. III, tempore praecesserunt ea quae dixit, Matth. IV, de necessitate poenitentiae. Nam id quod dixit Nicodemo de Baptismo, fuit ante incarcerationem Ioannis, de quo postea subditur quod baptizabat, illud vero quod de poenitentia dixit, Matth. IV, fuit post incarcerationem Ioannis. | Reply to Objection 3: If we note carefully what our Lord said about the necessity of Baptism (Jn. 3:3, seqq.), we shall see that this was said before His words about the necessity of Penance (Mt. 4:17); because He spoke to Nicodemus about Baptism before the imprisonment of John, of whom it is related afterwards (Jn. 3:23, 24) that he baptized, whereas His words about Penance were said after John was cast into prison. |
| Si tamen prius ad poenitentiam induxisset quam ad Baptismum, hoc ideo esset quia ante Baptismum etiam requiritur quaedam poenitentia, sicut et Petrus dixit, Act. II, poenitentiam agite, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum. | If, however, He had admonished men to do penance before admonishing them to be baptized, this would be because also before Baptism some kind of penance is required, according to the words of Peter (Acts 2:38): "Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you." |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod Christus non est usus Baptismo quem ipse instituit, sed est baptizatus Baptismo Ioannis, ut supra dictum est. Sed nec active usus est suo ministerio, quia ipse non baptizabat communiter, sed discipuli eius, ut dicitur Ioan. IV; quamvis credendum videtur quod discipulos baptizaverit, ut Augustinus dicit, ad Seleucianum. Usus autem huius sacramenti, ab eo instituti, nullo modo competebat, neque quantum ad hoc quod ipse poeniteret, in quo peccatum non fuit; neque quantum ad hoc quod hoc sacramentum aliis praeberet, quia, ad ostendendum misericordiam et virtutem suam, effectum huius sacramenti sine sacramento praebebat, ut supra dictum est. Sacramentum autem Eucharistiae et ipse sumpsit, et aliis dedit. Tum ad commendandam excellentiam huius sacramenti. Tum quia hoc sacramentum est memoriale suae passionis, inquantum Christus est sacerdos et hostia. | Reply to Objection 4: Christ did not use the Baptism which He instituted, but was baptized with the baptism of John, as stated above (Question [39], Articles [1],2). Nor did He use it actively by administering it Himself, because He "did not baptize" as a rule, "but His disciples" did, as related in Jn. 4:2, although it is to be believed that He baptized His disciples, as Augustine asserts (Ep. cclxv, ad Seleuc.). But with regard to His institution of this sacrament it was nowise fitting that He should use it, neither by repenting Himself, in Whom there was no sin, nor by administering the sacrament to others, since, in order to show His mercy and power, He was wont to confer the effect of this sacrament without the sacrament itself, as stated above (Article [5], ad 3). On the other hand, He both received and gave to others the sacrament of the Eucharist, both in order to commend the excellence of that sacrament, and because that sacrament is a memorial of His Passion, in which Christ is both priest and victim. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod poenitentia non debeat durare usque ad finem vitae. Poenitentia enim ordinatur ad deletionem peccati. Sed poenitens statim consequitur remissionem peccatorum, secundum illud Ezech. XVIII, si poenitentiam egerit impius ab omnibus peccatis suis quae operatus est, vita vivet et non morietur. Ergo non oportet ulterius poenitentiam protendi. | Objection 1: It would seem that Penance should not last till the end of life. Because Penance is ordained for the blotting out of sin. Now the penitent receives forgiveness of his sins at once, according to Ezech. 18:21: "If the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed . . . he shall live and shall not die." Therefore there is no need for Penance to be further prolonged. |
| Praeterea, agere poenitentiam pertinet ad statum incipientium. Sed homo de hoc statu debet procedere ad statum proficientium, et ulterius ad statum perfectorum. Ergo non debet homo poenitentiam agere usque ad finem vitae. | Objection 2: Further, Penance belongs to the state of beginners. But man ought to advance from that state to the state of the proficient, and, from this, on to the state of the perfect. Therefore man need not do Penance till the end of his life. |
| Praeterea, sicut in aliis sacramentis homo debet conservare statuta Ecclesiae, ita et in hoc sacramento. Sed secundum canones determinata sunt tempora poenitendi, ut scilicet ille qui hoc vel illud peccatum commiserit, tot annis poeniteat. Ergo videtur quod non sit poenitentia extendenda usque ad finem vitae. | Objection 3: Further, man is bound to observe the laws of the Church in this as in the other sacraments. But the duration of repentance is fixed by the canons, so that, to wit, for such and such a sin one is bound to do penance for so many years. Therefore it seems that Penance should not be prolonged till the end of life. |
| Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro de poenitentia, quid restat nobis nisi dolere in vita? Ubi enim dolor finitur, deficit poenitentia. Si vero poenitentia finitur, quid derelinquitur de venia? | On the contrary, Augustine says in his book, De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "What remains for us to do, save to sorrow ever in this life? For when sorrow ceases, repentance fails; and if repentance fails, what becomes of pardon?" |
| Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est poenitentia, scilicet interior, et exterior. Interior quidem poenitentia est qua quis dolet de peccato commisso. Et talis poenitentia debet durare usque ad finem vitae. Semper enim debet homini displicere quod peccavit, si enim ei placeret peccasse, iam ex hoc ipso peccatum incurreret, et fructus veniae perderet. Displicentia autem dolorem causat in eo qui est susceptivus doloris, qualis est homo in hac vita. Post hanc vitam autem sancti non sunt susceptivi doloris. Unde displicebunt eis peccata praeterita sine omni tristitia, secundum illud Isaiae LXV, oblivioni traditae sunt angustiae priores. | I answer that, Penance is twofold, internal and external. Internal penance is that whereby one grieves for a sin one has committed, and this penance should last until the end of life. Because man should always be displeased at having sinned, for if he were to be pleased thereat, he would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the fruit of pardon. Now displeasure causes sorrow in one who is susceptible to sorrow, as man is in this life; but after this life the saints are not susceptible to sorrow, wherefore they will be displeased at, without sorrowing for, their past sins, according to Is. 65:16. "The former distresses are forgotten." |
| Poenitentia vero exterior est qua quis exteriora signa doloris ostendit, et verbotenus confitetur peccata sua sacerdoti absolventi, et iuxta eius arbitrium satisfacit. Et talis poenitentia non oportet quod duret usque ad finem vitae, sed usque ad determinatum tempus, secundum mensuram peccati. | External penance is that whereby a man shows external signs of sorrow, confesses his sins verbally to the priest who absolves him, and makes satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the priest. Such penance need not last until the end of life, but only for a fixed time according to the measure of the sin. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vera poenitentia non solum removet peccata praeterita, sed etiam praeservat eum a peccatis futuris. Quamvis igitur homo in primo instanti verae poenitentiae remissionem consequatur praeteritorum peccatorum, oportet tamen in homine perseverare poenitentiam, ne iterum incidat in peccatum. | Reply to Objection 1: True penance not only removes past sins, but also preserves man from future sins. Consequently, although a man receives forgiveness of past sins in the first instant of his true penance, nevertheless he must persevere in his penance, lest he fall again into sin. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod agere poenitentiam interiorem simul et exteriorem pertinet ad statum incipientium, qui scilicet de novo redeunt a peccato. Sed poenitentia interior habet locum etiam in proficientibus et perfectis, secundum illud Psalmi, ascensiones in corde suo disposuit in valle lacrimarum. Unde et ipse Paulus dicebat, I Cor. XV, non sum dignus vocari apostolus, quoniam persecutus sum Ecclesiam Dei. | Reply to Objection 2: To do penance both internal and external belongs to the state of beginners, of those, to wit, who are making a fresh start from the state of sin. But there is room for internal penance even in the proficient and the perfect, according to Ps. 83:7: "In his heart he hath disposed to ascend by steps, in the vale of tears." Wherefore Paul says (1 Cor. 15:9): "I . . . am not worthy to be called an apostle because I persecuted the Church of God." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod illa tempora praefiguntur poenitentibus quantum ad actionem exterioris poenitentiae. | Reply to Objection 3: These durations of time are fixed for penitents as regards the exercise of external penance. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 9 [<< | >>]
| Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod poenitentia non possit esse continua. Dicitur enim Ierem. XXXI, quiescat vox tua a ploratu, et oculi tui a lacrimis. Sed hoc esse non posset si poenitentia continuaretur, quae consistit in ploratu et lacrimis. Ergo poenitentia non potest continuari. | Objection 1: It would seem that penance cannot be continuous. For it is written (Jer. 31:16): "Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes from tears." But this would be impossible if penance were continuous, for it consists in weeping and tears. Therefore penance cannot be continuous. |
| Praeterea, de quolibet bono opere debet homo gaudere, secundum illud Psalmi, servite domino in laetitia. Sed agere poenitentiam est bonum opus. Ergo de hoc ipso debet homo gaudere. Sed non potest homo simul tristari et gaudere, ut patet per philosophum, IX Ethic. Ergo non potest esse quod poenitens simul tristetur de peccatis praeteritis, quod pertinet ad rationem poenitentiae. | Objection 2: Further, man ought to rejoice at every good work, according to Ps. 99:1: "Serve ye the Lord with gladness." Now to do penance is a good work. Therefore man should rejoice at it. But man cannot rejoice and grieve at the same time, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually for his past sins, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance cannot be continuous. |
| Praeterea, II ad Cor. II, apostolus dicit, consolemini, scilicet poenitentem, ne forte abundantiori tristitia absorbeatur qui est huiusmodi. Sed consolatio depellit tristitiam, quae pertinet ad rationem poenitentiae. Ergo poenitentia non debet esse continua. | Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:7): "Comfort him," viz. the penitent, "lest perhaps such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." But comfort dispels grief, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance need not be continuous. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, dolor in poenitentia continue custodiatur. | On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on Penance [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "In doing penance grief should be continual." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod poenitere dicitur dupliciter, scilicet secundum actum, et secundum habitum. Actu quidem impossibile est quod homo continue poeniteat, quia necesse est quod actus poenitentis, sive interior sive exterior, interpoletur, ad minus somno et aliis quae ad necessitatem corporis pertinent. Alio modo dicitur poenitere secundum habitum. Et sic oportet quod homo continue poeniteat, et quantum ad hoc quod homo nunquam aliquid contrarium faciat poenitentiae, per quod habitualis dispositio poenitentis tollatur; et quantum ad hoc quod debet in proposito gerere quod semper sibi peccata praeterita displiceant. | I answer that, One is said to repent in two ways, actually and habitually. It is impossible for a man continually to repent actually. for the acts, whether internal or external, of a penitent must needs be interrupted by sleep and other things which the body needs. Secondly, a man is said to repent habitually. and thus he should repent continually, both by never doing anything contrary to penance, so as to destroy the habitual disposition of the penitent, and by being resolved that his past sins should always be displeasing to him. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ploratus et lacrimae ad actum exterioris poenitentiae pertinent, qui non solum non debet esse continuus, sed nec etiam oportet quod duret usque ad finem vitae, ut dictum est. Unde et signanter ibi subditur quod est merces operi tuo. Est autem merces operis poenitentis plena remissio peccati et quantum ad culpam et quantum ad poenam, post cuius consecutionem non est necesse quod homo ulterius exteriorem poenitentiam agat. Per hoc tamen non excluditur continuitas poenitentiae qualis dicta est. | Reply to Objection 1: Weeping and tears belong to the act of external penance, and this act needs neither to be continuous, nor to last until the end of life, as stated above (Article [8]): wherefore it is significantly added: "For there is a reward for thy work." Now the reward of the penitent's work is the full remission of sin both as to guilt and as to punishment; and after receiving this reward there is no need for man to proceed to acts of external penance. This, however, does not prevent penance being continual, as explained above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod de dolore et gaudio dupliciter loqui possumus. Uno modo, secundum quod sunt passiones appetitus sensitivi. Et sic nullo modo possunt esse simul, eo quod sunt omnino contrariae, vel ex parte obiecti, puta cum sunt de eodem; vel saltem ex parte motus cordis, nam gaudium est cum dilatatione cordis, tristitia vero cum constrictione. Et hoc modo loquitur philosophus in IX Ethicorum. Alio modo loqui possumus de gaudio et tristitia secundum quod consistunt in simplici actu voluntatis, cui aliquid placet vel displicet. Et secundum hoc, non possunt habere contrarietatem nisi ex parte obiecti, puta cum sunt de eodem et secundum idem. Et sic non possunt simul esse gaudium et tristitia, quia non potest simul idem secundum idem placere et displicere. Si vero gaudium et tristitia sic accepta non sint de eodem et secundum idem, sed vel de diversis vel de eodem secundum diversa, sic non est contrarietas gaudii et tristitiae. Unde nihil prohibet hominem simul gaudere et tristari, puta, si videamus iustum affligi, simul placet nobis eius iustitia, et displicet afflictio. Et hoc modo potest alicui displicere quod peccavit, et placere quod hoc ei displicet cum spe veniae, ita quod ipsa tristitia sit materia gaudii. Unde et Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, semper doleat poenitens, et de dolore gaudeat. | Reply to Objection 2: Of sorrow and joy we may speak in two ways: first, as being passions of the sensitive appetite; and thus they can no. wise be together, since they are altogether contrary to one another, either on the part of the object (as when they have the same object), or at least on the part of the movement, for joy is with expansion [*Cf. FS, Question [33], Article [1]] of the heart, whereas sorrow is with contraction; and it is in this sense that the Philosopher speaks in Ethic. ix. Secondly, we may speak of joy and sorrow as being simple acts of the will, to which something is pleasing or displeasing. Accordingly, they cannot be contrary to one another, except on the part of the object, as when they concern the same object in the same respect, in which way joy and sorrow cannot be simultaneous, because the same thing in the same respect cannot be pleasing and displeasing. If, on the other hand, joy and sorrow, understood thus, be not of the same object in the same respect, but either of different objects, or of the same object in different respects, in that case joy and sorrow are not contrary to one another, so that nothing hinders a man from being joyful and sorrowful at the same time---for instance, if we see a good man suffer, we both rejoice at his goodness and at the same time grieve for his suffering. In this way a man may be displeased at having sinned, and be pleased at his displeasure together with his hope for pardon, so that his very sorrow is a matter of joy. Hence Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "The penitent should ever grieve and rejoice at his grief." |
| Si tamen tristitia nullo modo compateretur sibi gaudium, per hoc non tolleretur habitualis continuitas poenitentiae, sed actualis. | If, however, sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy, this would prevent the continuance, not of habitual penance, but only of actual penance. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in II Ethic., ad virtutem pertinet tenere medium in passionibus. Tristitia autem quae in appetitu poenitentis sensitivo consequitur ex displicentia voluntatis, passio quaedam est. Unde moderanda est secundum virtutem, et eius superfluitas est vitiosa, quia inducit in desperationem. Quod significat apostolus ibidem dicens, ne maiori tristitia absorbeatur qui eiusmodi est. Et sic consolatio de qua ibi apostolus loquitur, est moderativa tristitiae, non autem totaliter ablativa. | Reply to Objection 3: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3,6,7,9) it belongs to virtue to establish the mean in the passions. Now the sorrow which, in the sensitive appetite of the penitent, arises from the displeasure of his will, is a passion; wherefore it should be moderated according to virtue, and if it be excessive it is sinful, because it leads to despair, as the Apostle teaches (2 Cor. 2:7), saying: "Lest such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." Accordingly comfort, of which the Apostle speaks, moderates sorrow but does not destroy it altogether. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 84 [<< | >>]
Article: 10 [<< | >>]
| Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacramentum poenitentiae non debeat iterari. Dicit enim apostolus, Heb. VI, impossibile est eos qui semel illuminati sunt, et gustaverunt donum caeleste, et participes facti sunt spiritus sancti, et prolapsi sunt, rursus renovari ad poenitentiam. Sed quicumque poenituerunt, sunt illuminati, et acceperunt donum spiritus sancti. Ergo quicumque peccat post poenitentiam, non potest iterato poenitere. | Objection 1: It would seem that the sacrament of Penance should not be repeated. For the Apostle says (Heb. 6:4, seqq.): "It is impossible for those, who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost . . . and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance." Now whosoever have done penance, have been illuminated, and have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore whosoever sin after doing penance, cannot do penance again. |
| Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in libro de poenitentia, reperiuntur qui saepius agendam poenitentiam putant. Qui luxuriantur in Christo. Nam, si vere poenitentiam agerent, iterandam postea non putarent, quia, sicut unum est Baptisma, ita una poenitentia. Sed Baptismus non iteratur. Ergo nec poenitentia. | Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Poenit. ii): "Some are to be found who think they ought often to do penance, who take liberties with Christ: for if they were truly penitent, they would not think of doing penance over again, since there is but one Penance even as there is but one Baptism." Now Baptism is not repeated. Neither, therefore, is Penance to be repeated. |
| Praeterea, miracula quibus dominus infirmitates corporales sanavit, significant sanationes spiritualium infirmitatum, quibus scilicet homines liberantur a peccatis. Sed non legitur quod dominus aliquem caecum bis illuminaverit, vel aliquem leprosum bis mundaverit, aut aliquem mortuum bis suscitaverit. Ergo videtur quod nec alicui peccatori bis per poenitentiam veniam largiatur. | Objection 3: Further, the miracles whereby our Lord healed bodily diseases, signify the healing of spiritual diseases, whereby men are delivered from sins. Now we do not read that our Lord restored the sight to any blind man twice, or that He cleansed any leper twice, or twice raised any dead man to life. Therefore it seems that He does not twice grant pardon to any sinner. |
| Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, in homilia Quadragesimae, poenitentia est anteacta peccata deflere, et flenda iterum non committere. Et Isidorus dicit, in libro de summo bono, irrisor est, et non poenitens, qui adhuc agit quod poenitet. Si ergo aliquis vere poeniteat, iterum non peccabit. Ergo non potest quod poenitentia iteretur. | Objection 4: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.): "Penance consists in deploring past sins, and in not committing again those we have deplored": and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii): "He is a mocker and no penitent who still does what he has repented of." If, therefore, a man is truly penitent, he will not sin again. Therefore Penance cannot be repeated. |
| Praeterea, sicut Baptismus habet efficaciam ex passione Christi, ita et poenitentia. Sed Baptismus non iteratur, propter unitatem passionis et mortis Christi. Ergo pari ratione et poenitentia non iteratur. | Objection 5: Further, just as Baptism derives its efficacy from the Passion of Christ, so does Penance. Now Baptism is not repeated, on account of the unity of Christ's Passion and death. Therefore in like manner Penance is not repeated. |
| Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, facilitas veniae incentivum praebet delinquendi. Si ergo Deus frequenter veniam praebet per poenitentiam, videtur quod ipse incentivum praebeat hominibus delinquendi, et sic videtur delectari in peccatis. Quod eius bonitati non congruit. Non ergo potest poenitentia iterari. | Objection 6: Further, Ambrose says on Ps. 118:58, "I entreated Thy face," etc., that "facility of obtaining pardon is an incentive to sin." If, therefore, God frequently grants pardon through Penance, it seems that He affords man an incentive to sin, and thus He seems to take pleasure in sin, which is contrary to His goodness. Therefore Penance cannot be repeated. |
| Sed contra est quod homo inducitur ad misericordiam exemplo divinae misericordiae, secundum illud Luc. VI, estote misericordes, sicut et pater vester misericors est. Sed dominus hanc misericordiam discipulis imponit, ut saepius remittant fratribus contra se peccantibus, unde, sicut dicitur Matth. XVIII, Petro quaerenti, quoties peccaverit in me frater meus, dimittam ei usque septies? Respondit Iesus, non dico tibi usque septies, sed usque septuagesies septies. Ergo etiam Deus saepius per poenitentiam veniam peccantibus praebet, praesertim cum doceat nos petere, dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. | On the contrary, Man is induced to be merciful by the example of Divine mercy, according to Lk. 6:36: "Be ye . . . merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Now our Lord commanded His disciples to be merciful by frequently pardoning their brethren who had sinned against them; wherefore, as related in Mt. 18:21, when Peter asked: "How often shall my brother off end against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?" Jesus answered: "I say not to thee, till seven times, but till seventy times seven times." Therefore also God over and over again, through Penance, grants pardon to sinners, especially as He teaches us to pray (Mt. 6:12): "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa poenitentiam erraverunt quidam dicentes non posse hominem per poenitentiam secundo consequi veniam peccatorum. Quorum quidam, scilicet Novatiani, hoc in tantum extenderunt quod dixerunt post primam poenitentiam quae agitur in Baptismo, peccantes non posse per poenitentiam iterato restitui. Alii vero fuerunt haeretici, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, qui post Baptismum dicebant quidem esse utilem poenitentiam, non tamen pluries, sed semel tantum. | I answer that, As regards Penance, some have erred, saying that a man cannot obtain pardon of his sins through Penance a second time. Some of these, viz. the Novatians, went so far as to say that he who sins after the first Penance which is done in Baptism, cannot be restored again through Penance. There were also other heretics who, as Augustine relates in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], said that, after Baptism, Penance is useful, not many times, but only once. |
| Videntur autem huiusmodi errores ex duobus processisse. Primo quidem, ex eo quod errabant circa rationem verae poenitentiae. Cum enim ad veram poenitentiam caritas requiratur, sine qua non delentur peccata, credebant quod caritas semel habita non possit amitti, et per consequens quod poenitentia, si sit vera, nunquam per peccatum tollatur, ut sit necesse eam iterari. Sed hoc improbatum est in secunda parte, ubi ostensum est quod caritas semel habita, propter libertatem arbitrii, potest amitti; et per consequens post veram poenitentiam potest aliquis peccare mortaliter. Secundo, ex eo quod errabant circa aestimationem gravitatis peccati. Putabant enim adeo grave esse peccatum quod aliquis committit post veniam impetratam, quod non sit possibile ipsum remitti. In quo quidem errabant et ex parte peccati, quod, etiam post remissionem consecutam, potest esse et gravius et levius etiam quam fuerit ipsum primum peccatum remissum, et multo magis contra infinitatem divinae misericordiae, quae est super omnem numerum et magnitudinem peccatorum, secundum illud Psalmi, miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam, et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum, dele iniquitatem meam. Unde reprobatur verbum Caini dicentis, Genes. IV, maior est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear. Et ideo misericordia Dei peccantibus per poenitentiam veniam praebet absque ullo termino. Unde dicitur II Paralip. ult., immensa et investigabilis misericordia promissionis tuae super malitias hominum. Unde manifestum est quod poenitentia est pluries iterabilis. | These errors seem to have arisen from a twofold source: first from not knowing the nature of true Penance. For since true Penance requires charity, without which sins are not taken away, they thought that charity once possessed could not be lost, and that, consequently, Penance, if true, could never be removed by sin, so that it should be necessary to repeat it. But this was refuted in the SS, Question [24], Article [11], where it was shown that on account of free-will charity, once possessed, can be lost, and that, consequently, after true Penance, a man can sin mortally. Secondly, they erred in their estimation of the gravity of sin. For they deemed a sin committed by a man after he had received pardon, to be so grave that it could not be forgiven. In this they erred not only with regard to sin which, even after a sin has been forgiven, can be either more or less grievous than the first, which was forgiven, but much more did they err against the infinity of Divine mercy, which surpasses any number and magnitude of sins, according to Ps. 50:1,2: "Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy: and according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my iniquity." Wherefore the words of Cain were reprehensible, when he said (Gn. 4:13): "My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon." And so God's mercy, through Penance, grants pardon to sinners without any end, wherefore it is written (2 Paral 37 [*Prayer of Manasses, among the Apocrypha. St. Thomas is evidently quoting from memory, and omits the words in brackets.]): "Thy merciful promise is unmeasurable and unsearchable . . . (and Thou repentest) for the evil brought upon man." It is therefore evident that Penance can be repeated many times. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia apud Iudaeos erant secundum legem quaedam lavacra instituta, quibus pluries se ab immunditiis purgabant, credebant aliqui Iudaeorum quod etiam per lavacrum Baptismi aliquis pluries purificari possit. Ad quod excludendum, apostolus scribit Hebraeis quod impossibile est eos qui semel sunt illuminati, scilicet per Baptismum, rursum renovari ad poenitentiam, scilicet per Baptismum, qui est lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis spiritus sancti, ut dicitur ad Tit. III. Et rationem assignat ex hoc quod per Baptismum homo Christo commoritur, unde sequitur, rursum crucifigentes in semetipsis filium Dei. | Reply to Objection 1: Some of the Jews thought that a man could be washed several times in the laver of Baptism, because among them the Law prescribed certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse themselves repeatedly from their uncleannesses. In order to disprove this the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews that "it is impossible for those who were once illuminated," viz. through Baptism, "to be renewed again to penance," viz. through Baptism, which is "the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost," as stated in Titus 3:5: and he declares the reason to be that by Baptism man dies with Christ, wherefore he adds (Heb. 6:6): "Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Ambrosius loquitur de poenitentia solemni, quae in Ecclesia non iteratur, ut infra dicetur. | Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose is speaking of solemn Penance, which is not repeated in the Church, as we shall state further on (XP, Question [28], Article [2]). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, multos caecos in diverso tempore dominus illuminavit, et multos debiles confortavit, ostendens in diversis illis eadem saepe peccata dimitti, ut quem prius sanavit leprosum, alio tempore illuminat caecum. Ideo enim tot sanavit caecos, claudos et aridos, ne desperet saepe peccator. Ideo non scribitur aliquem nisi semel sanasse, ut quisque timeat se iungi peccato. Medicum se vocat, et non sanis, sed male habentibus opportunum, sed qualis hic medicus qui malum iteratum nesciret curare? Medicorum enim est centies infirmum centies curare. Qui ceteris minor esset, si alii possibilia ignoraret. | Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia the authorship of which is unknown], "Our Lord gave sight to many blind men at various times, and strength to many infirm, thereby showing, in these different men, that the same sins are repeatedly forgiven, at one time healing a man from leprosy and afterwards from blindness. For this reason He healed so many stricken with fever, so many feeble in body, so many lame, blind, and withered, that the sinner might not despair; for this reason He is not described as healing anyone but once, that every one might fear to link himself with sin; for this reason He declares Himself to be the physician welcomed not of the hale, but of the unhealthy. What sort of a physician is he who knows not how to heal a recurring disease? For if a man ail a hundred times it is for the physician to heal him a hundred times: and if he failed where others succeed, he would be a poor physician in comparison with them." |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod poenitere est anteacta peccata deflere et flenda non committere simul dum flet, vel actu vel proposito. Ille enim est irrisor et non poenitens qui, simul dum poenitet, agit quod poenitet, proponit enim iterum se facturum quod gessit, vel etiam actualiter peccat eodem vel alio genere peccati. Quod autem aliquis postea peccat, vel actu vel proposito, non excludit quin prima poenitentia vera fuerit. Nunquam enim veritas prioris actus excluditur per actum contrarium subsequentem, sicut enim vere cucurrit qui postea sedet, ita vere poenituit qui postea peccat. | Reply to Objection 4: Penance is to deplore past sins, and, "while deploring them," not to commit again, either by act or by intention, those which we have to deplore. Because a man is a mocker and not a penitent, who, "while doing penance," does what he repents having done, or intends to do again what he did before, or even commits actually the same or another kind of sin. But if a man sin afterwards either by act or intention, this does not destroy the fact that his former penance was real, because the reality of a former act is never destroyed by a subsequent contrary act: for even as he truly ran who afterwards sits, so he truly repented who subsequently sins. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod Baptismus habet virtutem ex passione Christi sicut quaedam spiritualis regeneratio, cum spirituali morte praecedentis vitae. Statutum est autem hominibus semel mori, et semel nasci. Et ideo semel tantum debet homo baptizari. Sed poenitentia habet virtutem ex passione Christi sicut spiritualis medicatio, quae frequenter iterari potest. | Reply to Objection 5: Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a spiritual regeneration, with a spiritual death, of a previous life. Now "it is appointed unto man once to die" (Heb. 9:27), and to be born once, wherefore man should be baptized but once. On the other hand, Penance derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a spiritual medicine, which can be repeated frequently. |
| Ad sextum dicendum quod Augustinus, in libro de poenitentia, dicit quod constat Deo multum displicere peccata, qui semper praesto est ea destruere, ne solvatur quod creavit, ne corrumpatur quod amavit, scilicet per desperationem. | Reply to Objection 6: According to Augustine (De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown), "it is evident that sins displease God exceedingly, for He is always ready to destroy them, lest what He created should perish, and what He loved be lost," viz. by despair. |