Skip to text
JonHaines
Thomas Aquinas / Texts and commentaries
 

St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province

 

Index  [<< | >>]
Supplement  [<< | >>]
Question: 10  [<< | >>]


OF THE EFFECT OF CONFESSION (FIVE ARTICLES)


   We must now consider the effect of confession: under which head there are five points of inquiry:

    (1) Whether confession delivers one from the death of sin?

    (2) Whether confession delivers one in any way from punishment?

    (3) Whether confession opens Paradise to us?

    (4) Whether confession gives hope of salvation?

    (5) Whether a general confession blots out mortal sins that one has forgotten?


 

Index  [<< | >>]
Supplement  [<< | >>]
Question: 10  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]


Whether confession delivers one from the death of sin?


  Objection 1: It would seem that confession does not deliver one from the death of sin. For confession follows contrition. But contrition sufficiently blots out guilt. Therefore confession does not deliver one from the death of sin.

  Objection 2: Further, just as mortal sin is a fault, so is venial. Now confession renders venial that which was mortal before, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 17). Therefore confession does not blot out guilt, but one guilt is changed into another.

  On the contrary, Confession is part of the sacrament of Penance. But Penance deliver from guilt. Therefore confession does also.

  I answer that, Penance, as a sacrament, is perfected chiefly in confession, because by the latter a man submits to the ministers of the Church, who are the dispensers of the sacraments: for contrition has the desire of confession united thereto, and satisfaction is enjoined according to the judgment of the priest who hears the confession. And since in the sacrament of Penance, as in Baptism, that grace is infused whereby sins are forgiven, therefore confession in virtue of the absolution granted remits guilt, even as Baptism does. Now Baptism delivers one from the death of sin, not only by being received actually, but also by being received in desire, as is evident with regard to those who approach the sacrament of Baptism after being already sanctified. And unless a man offers an obstacle, he receives, through the very fact of being baptized, grace whereby his sins are remitted, if they are not already remitted. The same is to be said of confession, to which absolution is added because it delivered the penitent from guilt through being previously in his desire. Afterwards at the time of actual confession and absolution he receives an increase of grace, and forgiveness of sins would also be granted to him, if his previous sorrow for sin was not sufficient for contrition, and if at the time he offered no obstacle to grace. Consequently just as it is said of Baptism that it delivers from death, so can it be said of confession.

  Reply to Objection 1: Contrition has the desire of confession attached to it, and therefore it delivers penitents from death in the same way as the desire of Baptism delivers those who are going to be baptized.

  Reply to Objection 2: In the text venial does not designate guilt, but punishment that is easily expiated. and so it does not follow that one guilt is changed into another but that it is wholly done away. For "venial" is taken in three senses [*Cf. FS, Question [88], Article [2]]: first, for what is venial generically, e.g. an idle word: secondly, for what is venial in its cause, i.e. having within itself a motive of pardon, e.g. sins due to weakness: thirdly, for what is venial in the result, in which sense it is understood here, because the result of confession is that man's past guilt is pardoned.


 

Index  [<< | >>]
Supplement  [<< | >>]
Question: 10  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]


Whether confession delivers from punishment in some way?


  Objection 1: It would seem that confession nowise delivers from punishment. For sin deserves no punishment but what is either eternal or temporal. Now eternal punishment is remitted by contrition, and temporal punishment by satisfaction. Therefore nothing of the punishment is remitted by confession.

  Objection 2: Further, "the will is taken for the deed" [*Cf. Can. Magna Pietas, De Poenit., Dist. i], as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 17). Now he that is contrite has the intention to confess. wherefore his intention avails him as though he had already confessed, and so the confession which he makes afterwards remits no part of the punishment.

  On the contrary, Confession is a penal work. But all penal works expiate the punishment due to sin. Therefore confession does also.

  I answer that, Confession together with absolution has the power to deliver from punishment, for two reasons. First, from the power of absolution itself: and thus the very desire of absolution delivers a man from eternal punishment, as also from the guilt. Now this punishment is one of condemnation and total banishment: and when a man is delivered therefrom he still remains bound to a temporal punishment, in so far as punishment is a cleansing and perfecting remedy; and so this punishment remains to be suffered in Purgatory by those who also have been delivered from the punishment of hell. Which temporal punishment is beyond the powers of the penitent dwelling in this world, but is so far diminished by the power of the keys, that it is within the ability of the penitent, and he is able, by making satisfaction, to cleanse himself in this life. Secondly, confession diminishes the punishment in virtue of the very nature of the act of the one who confesses, for this act has the punishment of shame attached to it, so that the oftener one confesses the same sins, the more is the punishment diminished.

   This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.

  Reply to Objection 2: The will is not taken for the deed, if this is done by another, as in the case of Baptism: for the will to receive Baptism is not worth as much as the reception of Baptism. But a man's will is taken for the deed, when the latter is something done by him, entirely. Again, this is true of the essential reward, but not of the removal of punishment and the like, which come under the head of accidental and secondary reward. Consequently one who has confessed and received absolution will be less punished in Purgatory than one who has gone no further than contrition.


 

Index  [<< | >>]
Supplement  [<< | >>]
Question: 10  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]


Whether confession opens paradise?


  Objection 1: It would seem that confession does not open Paradise. For different sacraments have different effects. But it is the effect of Baptism to open Paradise. Therefore it is not the effect of confession.

  Objection 2: Further, it is impossible to enter by a closed door before it be opened. But a dying man can enter heaven before making his confession. Therefore confession does not open Paradise.

  On the contrary, Confession makes a man submit to the keys of the Church. But Paradise is opened by those keys. Therefore it is opened by confession.

  I answer that, Guilt and the debt of punishment prevent a man from entering into Paradise: and since confession removes these obstacles, as shown above (Articles [1],2), it is said to open Paradise.

  Reply to Objection 1: Although Baptism and Penance are different sacraments, they act in virtue of Christ's one Passion, whereby a way was opened unto Paradise.

  Reply to Objection 2: If the dying man was in mortal sin Paradise was closed to him before he conceived the desire to confess his sin, although afterwards it was opened by contrition implying a desire for confession, even before he actually confessed. Nevertheless the obstacle of the debt of punishment was not entirely removed before confession and satisfaction.


 

Index  [<< | >>]
Supplement  [<< | >>]
Question: 10  [<< | >>]
Article: 4  [<< | >>]


Whether confession gives hope of salvation?


  Objection 1: It would seem that hope of salvation should not be reckoned an effect of confession. For hope arises from all meritorious acts. Therefore, seemingly, it is not the proper effect of confession.

  Objection 2: Further, we arrive at hope through tribulation, as appears from Rm. 5:3,4. Now man suffers tribulation chiefly in satisfaction. Therefore, satisfaction rather than confession gives hope of salvation.

  On the contrary," Confession makes a man more humble and more wary," as the Master states in the text (Sent. iv, D, 17). But the result of this is that man conceives a hope of salvation. Therefore it is the effect of confession to give hope of salvation.

  I answer that, We can have no hope for the forgiveness of our sins except through Christ: and since by confession a man submits to the keys of the Church which derive their power from Christ's Passion, therefore do we say that confession gives hope of salvation.

  Reply to Objection 1: It is not our actions, but the grace of our Redeemer, that is the principal cause of the hope of salvation: and since confession relies upon the grace of our Redeemer, it gives hope of salvation, not only as a meritorious act, but also as part of a sacrament.

  Reply to Objection 2: Tribulation gives hope of salvation, by making us exercise our own virtue, and by paying off the debt of punishment: while confession does so also in the way mentioned above.


 

Index  [<< | >>]
Supplement  [<< | >>]
Question: 10  [<< | >>]
Article: 5  [<< | >>]


Whether a general confession suffices to blot out forgotten mortal sins?


  Objection 1: It would seem that a general confession does not suffice to blot out forgotten mortal sins. For there is no necessity to confess again a sin which has been blotted out by confession. If, therefore, forgotten sins were forgiven by a general confession, there would be no need to confess them when they are called to mind.

  Objection 2: Further, whoever is not conscious of sin, either is not guilty of sin, or has forgotten his sin. If, therefore, mortal sins are forgiven by a general confession, whoever is not conscious of a mortal sin, can be certain that he is free from mortal sin, whenever he makes a general confession: which is contrary to what the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:4), "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified."

  Objection 3: Further, no man profits by neglect. Now a man cannot forget a mortal sin without neglect, before it is forgiven him. Therefore he does not profit by his forgetfulness so that the sin is forgiven him without special mention thereof in confession.

  Objection 4: Further, that which the penitent knows nothing about is further from his knowledge than that which he has forgotten. Now a general confession does not blot out sins committed through ignorance, else heretics, who are not aware that certain things they have done are sinful, and certain simple people, would be absolved by a general confession, which is false. Therefore a general confession does not take away forgotten sins.

  On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 33:6): "Come ye to Him and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be confounded." Now he who confesses all the sins of which he is conscious, approaches to God as much as he can: nor can more be required for him. Therefore he will not be confounded by being repelled, but will be forgiven.

   Further, he that confesses is pardoned unless he be insincere. But he who confesses all the sins that he calls to mind, is not insincere through forgetting some, because he suffers from ignorance of fact, which excuses from sin. Therefore he receives forgiveness, and then the sins which he has forgotten, are loosened, since it is wicked to hope for half a pardon.

  I answer that, Confession produces its effect, on the presupposition that there is contrition which blots out guilt: so that confession is directly ordained to the remission of punishment, which it causes in virtue of the shame which it includes, and by the power of the keys to which a man submits by confessing. Now it happens sometimes that by previous contrition a sin has been blotted out as to the guilt, either in a general way (if it was not remembered at the time) or in particular (and yet is forgotten before confession): and then general sacramental confession works for the remission of the punishment in virtue of the keys, to which man submits by confessing, provided he offers no obstacle so far as he is concerned: but so far as the shame of confessing a sin diminishes its punishment, the punishment for the sin for which a man does not express his shame, through failing to confess it to the priest, is not diminished.

  Reply to Objection 1: In sacramental confession, not only is absolution required, but also the judgment of the priest who imposes satisfaction is awaited. Wherefore although the latter has given absolution, nevertheless the penitent is bound to confess in order to supply what was wanting to the sacramental confession.

  Reply to Objection 2: As stated above, confession does not produce its effect, unless contrition be presupposed; concerning which no man can know whether it be true contrition, even as neither can one know for certain if he has grace. Consequently a man cannot know for certain whether a forgotten sin has been forgiven him in a general confession, although he may think so on account of certain conjectural signs.

  Reply to Objection 3: He does not profit by his neglect, since he does not receive such full pardon, as he would otherwise have received, nor is his merit so great. Moreover he is bound to confess the sin when he calls it to mind.

  Reply to Objection 4: Ignorance of the law does not excuse, because it is a sin by itself: but ignorance of fact does excuse. Therefore if a man omits to confess a sin, because he does not know it to be a sin, through ignorance of the Divine law, he is not excused from insincerity. on the other hand, he would be excused, if he did not know it to be a sin, through being unaware of some particular circumstance, for instance, if he had knowledge of another's wife, thinking her his own. Now forgetfulness of an act of sin comes under the head of ignorance of fact, wherefore it excuses from the sin of insincerity in confession, which is an obstacle to the fruit of absolution and confession.


This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:49 1998.

Latin — Supplementum

pr.

Deinde considerandum est de effectu confessionis.

Circa quod quaeruntur quinque.

Primo: utrum confessio liberet a morte peccati.

Secundo: utrum confessio liberet aliquo modo a poena.

Tertio: utrum confessio aperiat paradisum.

Quarto: utrum confessio tribuat spem salutis.

Quinto: utrum confessio generalis deleat peccata mortalia oblita.

a. 1 arg. 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod confessio non liberet a morte peccati. Confessio enim contritionem sequitur. Sed contritio sufficienter delet culpam. Ergo confessio non liberat a morte peccati.

a. 1 arg. 2

Praeterea, sicut mortale est culpa, ita etiam veniale. Sed per confessionem fit veniale quod prius fuit mortale, ut in littera dicitur. Ergo per confessionem non remittitur culpa, sed culpa in culpam mutatur.

a. 1 s. c. 1

Sed contra: Confessio est pars poenitentiae sacramenti. Sed poenitentia a culpa liberat. Ergo et confessio.

a. 1 co.

Respondeo dicendum quod poenitentia, inquantum est sacramentum, praecipue in confessione perficitur: quia per eam homo ministris Ecclesiae se subdit, qui sunt sacramentorum dispensatores. Contritio enim votum confessionis annexum habet: et satisfactio pro iudicio sacerdotis cui fit confessio, taxatur. Et quia in sacramento poenitentiae gratia infunditur, per quam fit remissio peccatorum, sicut in baptismo; ideo eodem modo confessio ex vi absolutionis coniunctae remittit culpam sicut et baptismus. Liberat enim baptismus a morte peccati non solum secundum quod actu percipitur, sed etiam secundum quod in voto habetur: sicut patet in illis qui iam sanctificati ad baptismum accedunt. Et si aliquis impedimentum non praestaret, ex ipsa collatione baptismi gratiam consequeretur remittentem peccata, si prius ei remissa non fuissent. Et similiter dicendum est de confessione adiuncta absolutioni quod, secundum quod in voto poenitentis praecessit, a culpa liberavit; postmodum autem in actu confessionis et absolutionis gratia augetur; et etiam remissio peccatorum daretur, si praecedens dolor de peccatis non sufficiens ad contritionem fuisset, et ipse tunc obicem gratiae non praeberet. Et ideo, sicut de baptismo dicitur quod liberat a morte, ita etiam de confessione dici potest.

a. 1 ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod contritio habet votum confessionis annexum. Et ideo eo modo liberat a culpa poenitentes sicut desiderium baptismi baptizandos.

a. 1 ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod veniale non sumitur pro culpa, sed pro poena de facili expiabili. Unde non sequitur quod culpa in culpam convertatur, sed penitus annihilatur. Dicitur enim veniale tripliciter: uno modo ex genere, sicut verbum otiosum; alio modo ex causa, idest veniae causam in se habens, sicut peccatum ex infirmitate; alio modo ex eventu, sicut accipitur hic, quia per confessionem hoc evenit quod de culpa praeterita homo veniam consequatur.

a. 2 arg. 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod confessio non liberet aliquo modo a poena. Quia peccato non debetur nisi poena aeterna, vel temporalis. Sed poena aeterna per contritionem dimittitur, poena autem temporalis per satisfactionem. Ergo per confessionem nihil dimittitur de poena.

a. 2 arg. 2

Praeterea, voluntas pro facto reputatur: ut in littera dicitur. Sed ille qui contritus est, habuit propositum confitendi. Ergo tantum valuit sibi sicut si fuisset confessus. Et ita per confessionem quam postea facit, nihil de poena dimittitur.

a. 2 s. c. 1

Sed contra, confessio poenam habet. Sed per omnia opera poenalia expiatur poena peccato debita. Ergo et per confessionem.

a. 2 co.

Respondeo dicendum quod confessio, simul cum absolutione, habet vim liberandi a poena dupliciter. Uno modo, ex ipsa vi absolutionis. Et sic quidem liberat, in voto existens, a poena aeterna, sicut etiam a culpa: quae quidem poena est condemnans et ex toto exterminans. A qua homo liberatus, adhuc manet obligatus ad poenam temporalem, secundum quod poena est medicina purgans et promovens. Et haec poena restat in purgatorio patienda etiam his qui a poena inferni liberati sunt. Quae quidem poena est improportionata viribus poenitentis in hoc mundo viventis: sed per vim clavium in tantum minuitur quod proportionata viribus poenitentis remanet, ita quod satisfaciendo se in hac vita purgare potest.

Alio modo diminuit poenam ex ipsa natura actus confitentis, qui habet poenam erubescentiae annexam. Et ideo quanto aliquis pluries de eisdem peccatis confitetur, tanto magis poena minuitur.

a. 2 ad 1

Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum.

a. 2 ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod voluntas pro facto non reputatur in his quae sunt ab alio, sicut est de baptismo: non enim tantum valet voluntas suscipiendi baptismum sicut ipsius susceptio. Sed reputatur voluntas pro facto in his quae sunt omnino ab homine. Et iterum quantum ad praemium essentiale: non autem quantum ad poenae remotionem et huiusmodi, respectu quorum attenditur meritum accidentaliter et secundario. Et ideo confessus et absolutus minus in purgatorio punietur quam contritus tantum.

a. 3 arg. 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod confessio non aperiat paradisum. Quia diversorum diversi sunt effectus. Sed apertio paradisi effectus est baptismi. Ergo non est effectus confessionis.

a. 3 arg. 2

Praeterea, in id quod clausum est, ante apertionem intrari non potest. Sed ante confessionem moriens paradisum intrare potest. Ergo confessio non aperit paradisum.
B: (Rom 5:3) [b:Rom 5:3] (Rom 5:4) [b:Rom 5:4]

a. 3 s. c. 1

Sed contra, confessio facit hominem subiici Clavibus Ecclesiae. Sed per eas aperitur paradisus. Ergo et per confessionem.

a. 3 co.

Respondeo dicendum quod a paradisi introitu prohibetur aliquis per culpam et reatum poenae. Et quia haec impedimenta confessio amovet, ut ex dictis patet, ideo dicitur paradisum aperire.
R: Q.. 10 a. 1[t:suppl q. 10 a. 1] Q.. 10 a. 2[t:suppl q. 10 a. 2]

a. 3 ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis baptismus et poenitentia sint diversa sacramenta, tamen agunt in vi unius passionis Christi, per quam aditus paradisi est apertus.

a. 3 ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ante votum confessionis paradisus clausus erat peccanti mortaliter, quamvis postea per contritionem, votum confessionis importantem, apertus sit etiam ante confessionem actualiter factam. Non tamen obstaculum reatus est totaliter amotum ante confessionem et satisfactionem.

a. 4 arg. 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod effectus confessionis poni non debeat quod tribuit spem salutis. Quia spes ex omnibus meritoriis actibus provenit. Et sic non videtur esse proprius effectus confessionis.

a. 4 arg. 2

Praeterea, per tribulationem ad spem pervenimus: ut patet Rom. 5. Sed tribulationem homo praecipue in satisfactione sustinet. Ergo tribuere spem salutis magis est satisfactionis quam confessionis.
B: (1Cor 4:4) [b:1Cor 4:4]

a. 4 s. c. 1

Sed contra, per confessionem homo fit humilior et mitior: sicut in littera Magister dicit. Sed per hoc homo accipit spem salutis. Ergo confessionis effectus est tribuere spem salutis.

a. 4 co.

Respondeo dicendum quod spes remissionis peccatorum non est nobis nisi per Christum. Et quia homo per confessionem se subiicit clavibus Ecclesiae ex passione Christi virtutem habentibus, ideo dicitur quod confessio spem salutis tribuit.

a. 4 ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex actibus non potest esse spes salutis principaliter, sed ex gratia Redemptoris. Et quia confessio gratiae Redemptoris innititur, ideo spem salutis tribuit, non solum ut actus meritorius, sed ut pars sacramenti.
B: (Ps 33:6) [b:Ps 33:6]

a. 4 ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod tribulatio spem salutis tribuit per experimentum propriae virtutis, et purgationem a poena: sed confessio etiam modo praedicto.

a. 5 arg. 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod confessio generalis non sufficiat ad delendum peccata mortalia oblita. Peccatum enim per confessionem deletum non est necesse iterum confiteri; si ergo peccata oblita per confessionem generalem dimitterentur, non esset necessarium quod, cum ad notitiam redeunt, aliquis ea confiteretur.

a. 5 arg. 2

Praeterea, quicumque non est conscius alicuius peccati, vel non habet peccatum, vel est oblitus sui peccati. Si ergo per generalem confessionem peccata mortalia oblita dimittuntur, quicumque non est sibi conscius de aliquo peccato mortali, per generalem confessionem potest esse certus quod sit immunis a peccato mortali. Quod est contra Apostolum, I Cor. 4: nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus sum.

a. 5 arg. 3

Praeterea, nullus ex negligentia reportat commodum. Sed non potest esse sine negligentia quod aliquis peccatum mortale obliviscatur antequam ei dimittatur. Ergo non reportat ex hoc tale commodum quod sine speciali confessione de peccato ei dimittatur.

a. 5 arg. 4

Praeterea, magis est elongatum a cognitione confitentis illud quod est omnino ignoratum, quam illud cuius est oblitus. Sed peccata per ignorantiam commissa generalis confessio non delet: quia tunc haeretici, qui nesciunt aliqua peccata, in quibus sunt, esse peccata, aut etiam aliqui simplices per generalem confessionem absolverentur; quod falsum est. Ergo generalis confessio non tollit peccata oblita.

a. 5 s. c. 1

Sed contra: Psalmus: accedite ad eum et illuminamini, et facies vestrae non confundentur. Sed iste qui confitetur omnia quae scit, accedit ad Deum quantum potest. Plus autem ab eo requiri non potest. Ergo non confunditur, ut repulsam patiatur, sed veniam consequitur.

a. 5 arg. 5

Praeterea, ille qui confitetur veniam consequitur nisi sit fictus. Sed ille qui confitetur omnia peccata quae in memoria habet, aliquorum oblitus, non ex hoc est fictus: quia ignorantiam facti patitur, quae a peccato excusat. Ergo veniam consequitur. Et sic peccata quae oblita sunt relaxantur: cum impium sit dimidiam sperare veniam.

a. 5 co.

Respondeo dicendum quod confessio operatur praesupposita contritione, quae culpam delet. Et sic confessio directe ordinatur ad dimissionem poenae: quod quidem facit et ex erubescentia quam habet; et ex vi clavium, quibus se confitens subiicit. Contingit autem quandoque quod per contritionem praecedentem peccatum aliquod deletum est quoad culpam, sive in generali, si eius memoria tunc non habebatur, sive in speciali, et tamen ante confessionem aliquis illius peccati oblitus est. Et tunc confessio generalis sacramentalis operatur ad dimissionem poenae ex vi clavium, quibus se confitens subiicit nullum obstaculum, quantum in ipso est, ponens. Sed ex illa parte qua erubescentia confessionis peccati poenam minuebat, poena ipsius de quo quis specialiter coram sacerdote non erubuit, non est diminuta.

a. 5 ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in confessione sacramentali non solum requiritur absolutio, sed iudicium sacerdotis satisfactionem imponentis. Et ideo, quamvis iste absolutione sit functus, tamen tenetur confiteri ut suppleatur quod defuit sacramentali confessioni.

a. 5 ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod confessio non operatur, ut dictum est, nisi contritione praesupposita. De qua quando vera fuerit, non potest aliquis scire: sicut nec scire potest an gratiam habeat per certitudinem. Et ideo non potest scire utrum per confessionem generalem sit sibi peccatum oblitum dimissum per certitudinem: quamvis possit per coniecturas aliquas aestimare.

a. 5 ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod iste non reportat commodum ex negligentia. Quia non ita plenam remissionem consequitur sicut alias consecutus fuisset. Nec tantum meretur. Et tenetur iterum confiteri cum ad memoriam peccatum venerit.

a. 5 ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod ignorantia iuris non excusat, quia ipsa peccatum est: sed ignorantia facti excusat. Unde aliquis de hoc quod non confitetur peccata; quae nescit esse peccata propter ignorantiam iuris divini, non excusatur a fictione. Excusaretur autem si nesciret ea esse peccata propter ignorantiam particularis circumstantiae: sicut si cognovit alienam quam credidit esse suam. Sed oblivio de actu peccati habet ignorantiam facti. Et ideo excusat a peccato fictionis in confessione, quod fructum absolutionis et confessionis impedit.