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: 16  [<< | >>]


OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (THREE ARTICLES)


   We must now consider the recipients of the sacrament of Penance: under which head there are three points of inquiry:

    (1) Whether penance can be in the innocent?

    (2) Whether it can be in the saints in glory?

    (3) Whether in the good or bad angels?


 

Index  [<< | >>]
Supplement  [<< | >>]
Question: 16  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]


Whether penance can be in the innocent?


  Objection 1: It would seem that penance cannot be in the innocent. For penance consists in bewailing one's evil deeds: whereas the innocent have done no evil. Therefore penance cannot be in them.

  Objection 2: Further, the very name of penance [poenitentia] implies punishment [poena]. But the innocent do not deserve punishment. Therefore penance is not in them.

  Objection 3: Further, penance coincides with vindictive justice. But if all were innocent, there would be no room for vindictive justice. Therefore there would be no penance, so that there is none in the innocent.

  On the contrary, All the virtues are infused together. But penance is a virtue. Since, therefore, other virtues are infused into the innocent at Baptism, penance is infused with them.

   Further, a man is said to be curable though he has never been sick in body: therefore in like manner, one who has never been sick spiritually. Now even as there can be no actual cure from the wound of sin without an act of penance, so is there no possibility of cure without the habit of penance. Therefore one who has never had the disease of sin, has the habit of penance.

  I answer that, Habit comes between power and act: and since the removal of what precedes entails the removal of what follows, but not conversely, the removal of the habit ensues from the removal of the power to act, but not from the removal of the act. And because removal of the matter entails the removal of the act, since there can be no act without the matter into which it passes, hence the habit of a virtue is possible in one for whom the matter is not available, for the reason that it can be available, so that the habit can proceed to its act---thus a poor man can have the habit of magnificence, but not the act, because he is not possessed of great wealth which is the matter of magnificence, but he can be possessed thereof.

  Reply to Objection 1: Although the innocent have committed no sin, nevertheless they can, so that they are competent to have the habit of penance. Yet this habit can never proceed to its act, except perhaps with regard to their venial sins, because mortal sins destroy the habit. Nevertheless it is not without its purpose, because it is a perfection of the natural power.

  Reply to Objection 2: Although they deserve no punishment actually, yet it is possible for something to be in them for which they would deserve to be punished.

  Reply to Objection 3: So long as the power to sin remains, there would be room for vindictive justice as to the habit, though not as to the act, if there were no actual sins.


 

Index  [<< | >>]
Supplement  [<< | >>]
Question: 16  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]


Whether the saints in glory have penance?


  Objection 1: It would seem that the saints in glory have not penance. For, as Gregory says (Moral. iv), "the blessed remember their sins, even as we, without grief, remember our griefs after we have been healed." But penance is grief of the heart. Therefore the saints in heaven have not penance.

  Objection 2: Further, the saints in heaven are conformed to Christ. But there was no penance in Christ, since there was no faith which is the principle of penance. Therefore there will be no penance in the saints in heaven.

  Objection 3: Further, a habit is useless if it is not reduced to its act. But the saints in heaven will not repent actually, because, if they did, there would be something in them against their wish. Therefore the habit of penance will not be in them.

  Objection 4: On the other hand, penance is a part of justice. But justice is "perpetual and immortal" (Wis. 1:15), and will remain in heaven. Therefore penance will also.

  Objection 5: Further, we read in the Lives of the Fathers, that one of them said that even Abraham will repent of not having done more good. But one ought to repent of evil done more than of good left undone, and which one was not bound to do, for such is the good in question. Therefore repentance will be there of evil done.

  I answer that, The cardinal virtues will remain in heaven, but only as regards the acts which they exercise in respect of their end. Wherefore, since the virtue of penance is a part of justice which is a cardinal virtue, whoever has the habit of penance in this life, will have it in the life to come: but he will not have the same act as now, but another, viz. thanksgiving to God for His mercy in pardoning his sins.

  Reply to Objection 1: This argument proves that they do not have the same act as penance has now; and we grant this.

  Reply to Objection 2: Christ could not sin, wherefore the matter of this virtue was lacking in His respect both actually and potentially: so that there is no comparison between Him and others.

  Reply to Objection 3: Repentance, properly speaking, considered as that act of penance which is in this life, will not be in heaven: and yet the habit will not be without its use, for it will have another act.

  Reply to Objection 4:5: We grant the Fourth argument. But since the Fifth Objection proves that there will be the same act of penance in heaven as now, we answer the latter by saying that in heaven one will be altogether conformed to the will of God. Wherefore, as God, by His antecedent will, but not by His consequent will, wishes that all things should be good, and therefore that there should be no evil, so is it with the blessed. It is this will that this holy father improperly calls penance.


 

Index  [<< | >>]
Supplement  [<< | >>]
Question: 16  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]


Whether an angel can be the subject of penance?


  Objection 1: It would seem that even a good or bad angel can be a subject of penance. For fear is the beginning of penance. But fear is in the angels, according to James 2:19: "The devils . . . believe and tremble." Therefore there can be penance in them.

  Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 4) that "evil men are full of repentance, and this is a great punishment for them." Now the devils are exceeding evil, nor is there any punishment that they lack. Therefore they can repent.

  Objection 3: Further, a thing is more easily moved to that which is according to its nature than to that which is against its nature: thus water which has by violence been heated, of itself returns to its natural property. Now angels can be moved to sin which is contrary to their common nature. Much more therefore can they return to that which is in accord with their nature. But this is done by penance. Therefore they are susceptible to penance.

  Objection 4: Further, what applies to angels, applies equally to separated souls, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 4). But there can be penance in separated souls, as some say, as in the souls of the blessed in heaven. Therefore there can be penance in the angels.

  On the contrary, By penance man obtains pardon for the sin he has committed. But this is impossible in the angels. Therefore they are not subjects of penance.

   Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 4) that man is subject to penance on account of the weakness of his body. But the angels are not united to a body. Therefore no penance can be in them.

  I answer that, In us, penance is taken in two senses; first, as a passion, and thus it is nothing but pain or sorrow on account of a sin committed: and though, as a passion it is only in the concupiscible part, yet, by way of comparison, the name of penance is given to that act of the will, whereby a man detests what he has done, even as love and other passions are spoken of as though they were in the intellectual appetite. Secondly, penance is taken as a virtue, and in this way its act consists in the detestation of evil done, together with the purpose of amendment and the intention of expiating the evil, or of placating God for the offense committed. Now detestation of evil befits a person according as he is naturally ordained to good. And since this order or inclination is not entirely destroyed in any creature, it remains even in the damned, and consequently the passion of repentance, or something like it, remains in them too, as stated in Wis. 5:3 "(saying) within themselves, repenting," etc. This repentance, as it is not a habit, but a passion or act, can by no means be in the blessed angels, who have not committed any sins: but it is in the wicked angels, since the same applies to them as to the lost souls, for, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 4), "death is to men what sin is to an angel." But no forgiveness is possible for the sin of an angel. Now sin is the proper object of the virtue itself which we call penance, in so far as it can be pardoned or expiated. Therefore, since the wicked angels cannot have the matter, they have not the power to produce the act, so that neither can they have the habit. Hence the angels cannot be subjects of the virtue of penance.

  Reply to Objection 1: A certain movement of penance is engendered in them from fear, but not such as is a virtue.

   This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

  Reply to Objection 3: Whatever is natural in them is entirely good, and inclines to good: but their free-will is fixed on evil. And since the movement of virtue and vice follows the inclination, not of nature, but of the free-will, there is no need that there should be movements of virtue in them either actually or possibly, although they are inclined to good by nature.

  Reply to Objection 4: There is no parity between the holy angels and the beatified souls, because in the latter there has been or could have been a sin that could be pardoned, but not in the former: so that though they are like as to their present state, they differ as to their previous states, which penance regards directly.


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

Latin — Supplementum

pr.

Deinde considerandum est de suscipientibus hoc sacramentum.

Circa quod tria quaeruntur.

Primo: utrum poenitentia possit esse in innocentibus.

Secundo: utrum in sanctis qui sunt in gloria.

Tertio: utrum in angelis bonis seu malis.

a. 1 arg. 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in innocentibus poenitentia esse non possit. Quia poenitentia est commissa mala plangere. Sed innocentes nullum malum commiserunt. Ergo in eis poenitentia non est.

a. 1 arg. 2

Praeterea, poenitentia ex suo nomine importat poenam. Sed innocentibus non debetur poena. Ergo non est in eis poenitentia.

a. 1 arg. 3

Praeterea, poenitentia in idem coincidit cum vindicativa iustitia. Sed, omnibus existentibus innocentibus, vindicativa iustitia locum non haberet. Ergo nec poenitentia. Et ita non est in innocentibus.

a. 1 s. c. 1

Sed contra: Omnes virtutes simul infunduntur. Sed poenitentia est virtus. Curn ergo iri baptismo innocentibus infundantur aliae virtutes, infunditur etiam poenitentia.
B: (Wis 1:15) [b:Wis 1:15]

a. 1 arg. 4

Praeterea, ille qui nunquam fuit infirmus corporaliter, dicitur sanabilis. Ergo et similiter qui nunquam fuit infirmus spiritualiter. Sed, sicut sanatio in actu a vulnere peccati non est nisi per actum poenitentiae, ita nec sanabilitas nisi per habitum. Ergo ille qui nunquam habuit infirmitatem peccati, habet habitum poenitentiae.

a. 1 co.

Respondeo dicendum quod habitus medius est inter potentiam et actum. Et quia, remoto priori removetur posterius, non autem e converso; ideo, remota potentia ad actum, removetur habitus, non autem remoto actu. Et quia subtractio materiae tollit actum, propter hoc quod actus non potest esse sine materia in quam transit; ideo habitus alicuius virtutis competit alicui cui non suppetit materia, propter hoc quod suppetere potest, et ita in actum exire: sicut pauper homo potest habere habitum magnificentiae, sed non actum, quia non habet magnitudinem divitiarum, quae sunt materia magnificentiae; sed potest habere habitum. Et ideo, cum innocentes in statu innocentiae non habeant peccata commissa, quae sunt materia poenitentiae, sed possunt habere, actus poenitentiae in eis esse non potest, sed habitus potest. Et hoc si gratiam habeant, cum qua omnes virtutes infunduntur.

a. 1 ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis non commiserint, possunt tamen committere. Et ideo eis habitum poenitentiae habere competit. Sed tamen habitus iste nunquam in actum exire potest, nisi forte respectu venialium peccatorum: quia peccata mortalia tollunt ipsum. Nec tamen est frustra: quia est perfectio potentiae naturalis.

a. 1 ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, quamvis non sit eis debita poena actu, tamen in eis est possibile esse aliquid pro quo eis poena debeatur.

a. 1 ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, remanente potentia ad peccandum, adhuc haberet locum vindicativa iustitia secundum habitum: quamvis non secundum actum, si peccata actu non essent.

a. 2 arg. 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sancti homines qui sunt in gloria, non habeant poenitentiam. Quia, sicut dicit Gregorius, in Moralia: beati peccatorum recordantur sicut nos sani sine dolore dolorum memoramur. Sed poenitentia est dolor cordis. Ergo sancti in patria non habent poenitentiam.
B: (Jas 2:19) [b:Jas 2:19]

a. 2 arg. 2

Praeterea, sancti in patria sunt Christo conformes. Sed in Christo non fuit poenitentia: quia nec fides, quae est principium poenitentiae. Ergo nec sanctis in patria erit poenitentia.

a. 2 arg. 3

Praeterea, frustra est habitus qui ad actum non reducitur. Sed sancti in patria non poenitebunt actu: quia sic eis esset aliquid contra votum. Ergo non est in eis habitus poenitentiae.

a. 2 s. c. 1

Sed contra: Poenitentia est pars iustitiae. Sed iustitia est perpetua et immortalis, et in patria remanebit. Ergo et poenitentia.

a. 2 arg. 4

Praeterea, in Vitis Patrum legitur a quodam patre dictum quod etiam Abraham poenitebit de hoc quod non plura bona fecit. Sed magis debet homo poenitere de malo commisso quam de bono omisso ad quod non tenebatur (quia de bono tali loquitur). Ergo erit ibi poenitentia de malis commissis.

a. 2 co.

Respondeo dicendum quod virtutes cardinales remanebunt in patria, sed secundum actus quos habent in fine suo. Et ideo, cum poenitentia virtus sit pars iustitiae, quae est habitus cardinalis, quicumque habet habitum poenitentiae in hac vita, habebit in futura. Sed non habebit eundem actum quem nunc habet, sed alium: scilicet gratias agere Deo pro misericordia relaxante peccata.

a. 2 ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa auctoritas probat quod non habent eundem actum quem hic habet poenitentia. Et hoc concedimus.
B: (Wis 5:3) [b:Wis 5:3]

a. 2 ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod Christus non potuit peccare. Et ideo materia huius virtutis non competit sibi nec actu nec potentia. Et propter hoc non est simile de ipso et de aliis.

a. 2 ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod poenitere, proprie loquendo, prout dicit actum poenitentiae qui nunc est, non erit in patria. Nec tamen habitus frustra erit: quia alium actum habebit.

a. 2 ad 4

Quartum concedimus.

a. 2 ad 5

Sed quia quinta ratio probat quod etiam idem actus poenitentiae erit in patria qui modo est: ideo dicendum ad quintum quod voluntas nostra in patria omnino erit conformis voluntati Dei. Unde, sicut Deus voluntate antecedente vult omnia esse bona et per consequens nihil esse mali, non autem voluntate consequente; ita etiam est de beatis. Et talis voluntas improprie dicitur ab illo sancto patre poenitentia.

a. 3 arg. 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod etiam angelus, bonus seu malus, sit susceptivus poenitentiae. Quia timor est initium poenitentiae. Sed in eis est timor: Iac. 2, daemones credunt et contremiscunt. Ergo in eis potest esse poenitentia.

a. 3 arg. 2

Praeterea, Philosophus dicit, IX Ethic., quod poenitudine replentur mali, et haec est maxima poena eis. Sed daemones maxime sunt pravi, nec aliqua poena eis deest. Ergo daemones possunt poenitere.

a. 3 arg. 3

Praeterea, facilius movetur aliquid in id quod est secundum naturam, quam in id quod est contra naturam: sicut aqua quae per violentiam calefacta est, etiam per seipsam ad naturalem proprietatem redit. Sed angelus potest mutari in peccatum, quod est contra omnem naturam eorum. Ergo multo fortius potest revocari in id quod est secundum naturam. Sed hoc facit poenitentia. Ergo sunt susceptibiles poenitentiae.

a. 3 arg. 4

Praeterea, idem iudicium est, secundum Damascenum, de angelis et de animabus separatis. Sed in animabus separatis potest esse poenitentia, ut quidam dicunt: sicut in animabus beatis quae sunt in patria. Ergo et in angelis potest esse poenitentia.

a. 3 s. c. 1

Sed contra: Per poenitentiam homo reparatur ad vitam, peccato dimisso. Sed hoc est impossibile in angelis. Ergo non sunt susceptibiles poenitentiae.

a. 3 arg. 5

Praeterea, Damascenus dicit quod homo fungitur poenitentia propter corporis infirmitatem. Sed angeli sunt incorporei. Ergo in eis non potest esse poenitentia.

a. 3 co.

Respondeo dicendum quod poenitentia in nobis dupliciter accipitur. Uno modo, secundum quod est passio: sic enim nihil aliud est quam dolor vel tristitia de malo commisso. Et quamvis, secundum quod est passio, non sit nisi in concupiscibili, tamen aliquis actus voluntatis similitudinarie poenitentia dicitur, quo quis detestatur quod facit: sicut amor et aliae passiones dicuntur in intellectivo appetitu.

Alio modo accipitur secundum quod est virtus. Et hoc modo detestari malum commissum cum emendationis proposito et intentione expiandi, vel Deum placandi de offensa commissa, est actus eius. Detestatio autem competit alicui secundum quod habet: ordinem naturalem ad bonum. Et quia in nulla creatura talis ordinatio totaliter tollitur, ideo etiam in damnatis talis detestatio manet: et per consequens poenitentiae passio, vel simile ei, ut dicitur Sap. 5: intra se poenitentiam agentes. Et haec quidem poenitentia, cum non sit habitus, sed passio vel actus, nullo modo in beatis angelis esse potest, in quibus peccata commissa non praecesserunt: sed in malis angelis est, cum sit eadem ratio de his et de animabus damnatis, quia, secundum Damascenum, quod homini est mors, est angelis casus. Sed peccatum angeli est irremissibile. Et quia peccatum ut remissibile est vel expiabile, est propria materia ipsius virtutis quae poenitentia dicitur; ideo, cum materia non possit eis competere, non adest eis potentia exeundi in actum. Et ideo nec habitus eis convenit. Et ideo angeli susceptivi virtutis poenitentiae esse non possunt.

a. 3 ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex timore in eis generatur aliquis poenitentiae motus, sed non quae sit virtus.

a. 3 ad 2

Et similiter dicendum ad secundum.

a. 3 ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod quidquid in eis est naturale, totum est bonum et ad bonum inclinans: sed liberum arbitrium est in eis in malitia obstinatum. Et quia motus virtutis et vitii non sequitur inclinationem naturae, sed magis motum liberi arbitrii; ideo non oportet quod, quamvis naturaliter inclinentur ad bonum, quod motus virtutis in eis sit vel esse possit.

a. 3 ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod non est eadem ratio de angelis sanctis et de animabus sanctis: quia in animabus sanctis praecessit, vel praecedere potuit peccatum remissibile; non autem in angelis. Et ita, quamvis sint similes quantum ad statum praesentem, non tamen quantum ad statum praeteritum, quem poenitentia respicit directe.