Dist. 15, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 15
Quaestio III. Utrum extra caritatem abstinentem a peccatis possibile sit Deo satisfacere.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum extra caritatem abstinentem a peccatis possibile sit satisfacere. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Lucae undecimo1: Date eleemosynam, et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis; constat, quod ibi loquitur de peccatoribus: ergo potest satisfacere quis per eleemosynam sine gratia. Et hoc ipsum Danielis quarto dixit Daniel Nabuchodonosor: Peccata tua eleemosynis redime; et constat, quod ille erat peccator magnus: ergo etc.
2. Item, Threnorum tertio2: Venatione ceperunt me; Glossa: «Etsi fides deesset, poena satisfaceret»; sed ubi deest fides, non est caritas: ergo etc.
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia ad nullum praeceptum divinum tenetur homo ex caritate hoc constat, quia, si quis pro loco et tempore parentes honorat, etiam non habens caritatem, non peccat3: ergo multo minus tenetur ex caritate implere sacerdotis mandatum. Sed satisfactio est mandatum sacerdotis: ergo potest fieri extra caritatem.
4. Item, si tenetur ex caritate satisfacere, cum nullus sit certus, utrum amore, an odio dignus sit4, semper est in dubio: ergo semper debet satisfacere. Si tu dicas, quod conclusio est vera, quia semper continuanda est poenitentia usque ad mortem5; ergo esto, quod imposita sit alicui poenitentia dare centum marcas, videtur secundum hoc, quod semper tenetur dare; sed hoc est impossibile: ergo tenetur ad impossibile.
Contra: 1. «Non respicit Deus quantum, sed quanto»6; sed voluntas sine caritate non placet Deo: ergo nec opus, ergo nec satisfactio.
2. Item, quamdiu homo est extra caritatem, est inimicus; sed satisfactio est reconciliativa: ergo talis non potest satisfacere.
3. Item, Apostolus, primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio7: Si distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas, caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest: ergo etc.
4. Item, nullus damnatur pro culpa, pro qua satisfacit; et nullus damnatur nisi propter culpam: ergo nullus satisfaciens damnatur. Sed nullus evadit damnationem, nisi qui habet caritatem: ergo nullus satisfacit, nisi qui est in caritate.
Conclusio. Sine gratia gratum faciente nemo potest Deo satisfacere.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod satisfacere, quantum est de vi nominis, importat divinam acceptationem et reconciliationem et amicitiam; et quoniam sine gratia gratum faciente et caritate impossibile est, aliquem Deo placere, et opera eius acceptari: ideo nec satisfacere est possibile. Potest tamen homo, antequam habeat caritatem, praeparare se ad habendam caritatem8 et ad faciendam satisfactionem. Et sic intelligitur consilium Domini et consilium Danielis, ut se praeparent per eleemosynam ad gratiam, qua accepta, multiplicando eleemosynas satisfacerent.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa in Threnis, dicendum, quod fides ibi dicitur conscientia peccati. Aliquando enim habens gratiam per poenam satisfacit de culpa, cuius non habet memoriam; unde tantum valet dicere: si fides desit, quantum: si desit conscientia9.
3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullus tenetur ex caritate implere mandata; dicendum, quod quando satisfactionis opus ab homine imponitur homini, non tenetur illud opus facere ex caritate sive in caritate, quia praeceptum; sed necesse habet in caritate facere ad hoc, quod sit emendatorium et Deo placiturum. Et ideo dico, quod opere illo iniuncto completo, non tenetur illud iterare. Sed si dubitat probabiliter, se Deo non satisfecisse, non debet a satisfactione cessare, quousque per signa probabilia habeat certitudinem de culpa dimissa et poena. Unde, sicut dictum est de aliis Sacramentis, maxime de eucharistia10, quod non valet nisi habenti caritatem, non tamen tenetur quis accedere ex caritate secundum veritatem, sed se probabiliter disponere; ita etiam de satisfactione dicendum,
quod opera iniuncta in satisfactionem tenetur facere, et tenetur se disponere, quantum est in se; et sic absolutus est in foro Ecclesiae et a poena suae conscientiae, et in foro Dei absolutus est, ut non peccet in hoc faciendo. Sed tamen per haec opera non absolvitur omnino; et ideo sanum consilium est, quod homo semper poeniteat. Sufficit tamen cum signis probabilibus fecisse poenitentiam iniunctam, nec oportet eam iterare. Unde si centum dedit, non debet iterare, nec sacerdos debet iterum imponere nisi pro aliqua culpa de novo commissa. Satisfecit enim talis in foro Ecclesiae et suae conscientiae.
Unde notandum, quod duplex potest distingui forum secundum duplex iudicium, scilicet forum conscientiae et forum divinae iustitiae. Primum est manifestum, secundum est occultum. Si quis igitur impleat poenitentiam impositam sine remorsu conscientiae, sed tamen extra caritatem; non tenetur satisfacere amplius, nec iudicio sacerdotis nec suo; tenetur tamen iudicio Dei, quia adhuc Deus exiget poenam. Illud autem forum distinguitur contra forum Ecclesiae; sed istud vocatur forum Ecclesiae, quod est in facie Ecclesiae et secundum iudicium publicum.
I. De responsione ad hanc 3. quaestionem cfr. etiam III. Sent. d. 18. a. 2. q. 3. ad 3, ubi idem docetur. Consentit S. Thom., sed Scot. (hic q. 1. n. 15-18.), saltem quoad satisfactionem sacramentalem (cfr. hic ad 3.), probabile esse putat, pro peccatis antea iam dimissis per opus in mortali factum non tantum satisfieri praecepto a sacerdote imposito, sed etiam posse solvi poenam satisfactoriam, licet opus non sit meritorium; cui opinioni favent Durandus, Biel et etiam plures recentiores, refragantibus cum S. Thoma principalibus antiquis Scholasticis, immo Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 24. m. 4. a. 2.), in hoc contrarius S. Bonaventurae, disertis verbis dicit, poenitentiam in hoc statu completam esse iterandam, et B. Albert. (hic a. 30.) excipit ab ista iteratione tantum ea opera quae in effectu suo manent. Alii antiqui et recentiores putant, poenitentiam sacramentalem in peccato factam postea, cessante obice peccati, effectum satisfactorium producere posse; quod probabile esse censet S. Bonav., de quo vide seq. quaestionem. Quoad iterationem autem iniunctae poenitentiae in statu peccati factae ad mentem nostri auctoris S. Alphonsus (Theol. Moral. VI. tr. 4. n. 522. seq.) docet, esse nunc sententiam communiorem et probabiliorem, satisfieri praecepto, licet poenitens talis probabilius peccet venialiter. — De hac 3. quaestione praeter Scotum: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 1. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 14. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. q. 5. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. n. 7. 8. 13. 14. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 2.
II. Ad 4. quaestionem Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., B. Albert., Richard. a Med. absolute respondent negative; Scotus cum non paucis vult, eam pie affirmari posse; quod auctor noster esse probabile censet. — De eadem: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. § 3. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 15. 16. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 14. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4.
III. De 5. quaestione cfr. II. Sent. d. 28. a. 2. q. 2. 3. scholion, nec non ibid. a. 1, d. 24. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. — De speciebus meriti vide II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. et scholion. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3. § 1. 2. — Scoti loci collecti ab Hieron. de Montefortino, V. q. 13. a. 4. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4; Suppl. q. 14. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med. tangit hanc et seq. q. hic a. 1. q. 5. ad 3. — Durand., hic q. 3.
IV. De quaestione 6. cfr. infra p. II. dub. 8. In eius solutione S. Thomas concordat per omnia; similiter Alex. Hal., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Durand., aliique. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 5; Suppl. q. 14. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 32. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Durand., hic q. 4.
---
Question III. Whether it is possible, outside of charity, while abstaining from sins, to make satisfaction to God.
Thirdly it is asked whether, outside of charity, while abstaining from sins, it is possible to make satisfaction. And that it is, seems to be the case:
1. Luke eleven1: Give alms, and behold, all things are clean to you; it is established that there he is speaking of sinners: therefore someone can make satisfaction by alms without grace. And this same thing Daniel said to Nabuchodonosor in Daniel four: Redeem your sins by alms; and it is established that he was a great sinner: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, Lamentations three2: They have caught me as in a hunt; the Gloss: «Even if faith were lacking, the punishment would make satisfaction»; but where faith is lacking, there is no charity: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because to no divine precept is a man bound out of charity — this is established, since, if someone honors his parents according to place and time, even without having charity, he does not sin3: therefore much less is he bound out of charity to fulfill the priest's command. But satisfaction is the priest's command: therefore it can be done outside of charity.
4. Likewise, if one is bound out of charity to make satisfaction, since no one is certain whether he is worthy of love or of hatred4, he is always in doubt: therefore he must always make satisfaction. If you say that the conclusion is true, because penance must always be continued until death5; then suppose that a penance of giving a hundred marks were imposed on someone — it seems, according to this, that he is always bound to give; but this is impossible: therefore he is bound to the impossible.
On the contrary: 1. «God does not regard how much, but with how great [a disposition]»6; but a will without charity does not please God: therefore neither does the work, therefore neither does the satisfaction.
2. Likewise, as long as a man is outside of charity, he is an enemy; but satisfaction is reconciliative: therefore such a one cannot make satisfaction.
3. Likewise, the Apostle, First Corinthians thirteen7: If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, but have not charity, it profits me nothing: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, no one is damned for a fault for which he makes satisfaction; and no one is damned except on account of a fault: therefore no one who makes satisfaction is damned. But no one escapes damnation except him who has charity: therefore no one makes satisfaction except him who is in charity.
Conclusion. Without sanctifying grace no one can make satisfaction to God.
I respond: It must be said that to make satisfaction, as far as the force of the word goes, implies divine acceptance and reconciliation and friendship; and since without sanctifying grace and charity it is impossible for anyone to please God and for his works to be accepted: therefore neither is it possible to make satisfaction. Nevertheless a man can, before he has charity, prepare himself to have charity8 and to make satisfaction. And thus is to be understood the counsel of the Lord and the counsel of Daniel, that they should prepare themselves through alms for grace, which once received, by multiplying alms they would make satisfaction.
2. To the objection from the Gloss on Lamentations, it must be said that "faith" is there called the conscience of sin. For sometimes one having grace makes satisfaction through punishment for a fault of which he has no memory; whence it is as much as to say: if faith be lacking, as much as: if conscience be lacking9.
3. 4. To the objection that no one is bound out of charity to fulfill the commands; it must be said that when a work of satisfaction is imposed by a man upon a man, he is not bound to do that work out of charity or in charity, since it is a precept; but he has need to do it in charity for this, that it may be emendatory and pleasing to God. And therefore I say that, once that enjoined work is completed, he is not bound to repeat it. But if he probably doubts that he has not made satisfaction to God, he ought not to cease from satisfaction until through probable signs he has certitude concerning the fault forgiven and the punishment. Whence, as has been said concerning the other Sacraments, especially the Eucharist10, that it avails only to one having charity, yet no one is bound to approach out of charity according to truth, but to dispose himself probably; so too it must be said concerning satisfaction,
that he is bound to do the works enjoined for satisfaction, and is bound to dispose himself, as far as is in him; and thus he is absolved in the forum of the Church and from the punishment of his conscience, and in the forum of God he is absolved, so that he does not sin in doing this. But nevertheless by these works he is not absolved altogether; and therefore it is sound counsel that a man should always do penance. Yet it suffices to have done the enjoined penance with probable signs, nor is it necessary to repeat it. Whence if he has given a hundred, he ought not to repeat it, nor ought the priest to impose again except for some fault newly committed. For such a one has made satisfaction in the forum of the Church and of his conscience.
Whence it is to be noted that a twofold forum can be distinguished according to a twofold judgment, namely the forum of conscience and the forum of divine justice. The first is manifest, the second is hidden. If, then, anyone fulfills the imposed penance without remorse of conscience, but nevertheless outside of charity; he is not bound to make satisfaction further, neither by the judgment of the priest nor by his own; yet he is bound by the judgment of God, since God will still exact the punishment. But that forum is distinguished against the forum of the Church; whereas this is called the forum of the Church, which is in the face of the Church and according to public judgment.
I. Concerning the reply to this 3rd question cf. also III Sentences d. 18, a. 2, q. 3, ad 3, where the same is taught. St. Thomas agrees, but Scotus (here q. 1, n. 15–18), at least as regards sacramental satisfaction (cf. here ad 3), holds it probable that, for sins already previously remitted, the satisfactory penalty can be discharged not only by a work done while in mortal sin fulfilling the precept imposed by a priest, but also even apart from this — though the work be not meritorious; to which opinion Durandus, Biel, and also several more recent authors are favorable, with the principal ancient Scholastics opposing along with St. Thomas; indeed Alexander of Hales (S. p. IV, q. 24, m. 4, a. 2), in this contrary to St. Bonaventure, says in express words that a penance completed in this state is to be repeated; and Blessed Albert (here a. 30) excepts from this repetition only those works which remain in their effect. Other ancients and moderns hold that a sacramental penance done while in sin can afterward, once the obstacle of sin has ceased, produce a satisfactory effect; which St. Bonaventure judges to be probable, concerning which see the following question. As to the repetition, however, of an enjoined penance done in a state of sin, according to the mind of our author, St. Alphonsus (Moral Theology VI, tr. 4, n. 522 f.) teaches that it is now the more common and more probable opinion that the precept is satisfied, although such a penitent more probably sins venially. — On this 3rd question besides Scotus: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 1, 2. — S. Thom., here q. 1, a. 3, quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 14, a. 2. — B. Albert., here a. 8, 9. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1, a. 3, quaestiunc. 2, 3. — Richard. a Med., on this and the following q. here a. 1, q. 5. — Durand., on this and the following q. here q. 2, n. 7, 8, 13, 14. — Dionys. Carth., on this and the following qq. here q. 2.
II. To the 4th question Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., B. Albert., Richard. a Med. respond absolutely in the negative; Scotus with not a few holds that it can piously be affirmed; which our author judges to be probable. — On the same: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2, § 3. — Scot., here q. 1, n. 15, 16. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 14, a. 3. — B. Albert., here a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4.
III. On the 5th question cf. II Sentences d. 28, a. 2, q. 2, 3, scholion, and also ibid. a. 1, d. 24, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2. — On the species of merit see II Sentences d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, and scholion. — On the same question: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3, § 1, 2. — Scotus' passages collected by Hieronymus of Montefortino, V, q. 13, a. 4. — S. Thom., here loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4; Suppl. q. 14, a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard. a Med. touches upon this and the following q. here a. 1, q. 5, ad 3. — Durand., here q. 3.
IV. On the 6th question cf. below p. II, dub. 8. In its solution St. Thomas agrees in all respects; likewise Alex. Hal., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Durand., and others. — On the same question: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. — S. Thom., here loc. cit. quaestiunc. 5; Suppl. q. 14, a. 5. — B. Albert., here a. 32. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Durand., here q. 4.
---
- 1Vers. 41. — Seq. textus est Dan. 4, 24.Verse 41. — The following text is Daniel 4:24.
- 2Vers. 52. — Glossa, quam exhibet Lyranus in v. 54, sumta est ex Paschasio Radberto in hunc loc. Eandem sententiam profert Ambros. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 3.Verse 52. — The Gloss, which Lyra furnishes on v. 54, is taken from Paschasius Radbertus on this passage. Ambrose advances the same opinion here in the text of the Master, c. 3.
- 3De quo vide III. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 2.On which see III Sentences d. 37, a. 1, q. 2.
- 4Eccle. 9, 1.Ecclesiastes 9:1.
- 5Ut insinuatur supra ab Augustino in lit. Magistri, d. XIV. c. 3. circa finem. — De ultima conclusione cfr. supra pag. 234, nota 6. — Inferius pro imposita sit alicui poenitentia codd. A G K impositum sit alicui.As is intimated above by Augustine in the text of the Master, d. XIV, c. 3, near the end. — On the last conclusion cf. above p. 234, note 6. — Below, for a penance were imposed on someone codices A G K [read] something were imposed on someone.
- 6Secundum Gregor. et Bedam nec non Glossam ordinariam in Marc. 12, 43. apud Lyranum. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 906, nota 6. et pag. 929, nota 5.According to Gregory and Bede, as well as the Glossa Ordinaria on Mark 12:43, in Lyra. Cf. tom. II, p. 906, note 6, and p. 929, note 5.
- 7Vers. 3, ubi Vulgata post meas addit: et si tradidero corpus meum, ita ut ardeam.Verse 3, where the Vulgate after meas adds: and if I should deliver my body, so that I burn.
- 8Cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. in fine corp. et d. 28. a. 2. q. 1. — Cod. U habeat gratiam, praeparare se ad gratiam et caritatem.Cf. II Sentences d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, at the end of the corpus, and d. 28, a. 2, q. 1. — Codex U [reads] let him have grace, to prepare himself for grace and charity.
- 9Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. in fine, ubi illa sententia eodem modo exponitur. — Cod. B addit peccati.See here the text of the Master, c. 3, at the end, where that opinion is expounded in the same way. — Codex B adds of sin.
- 10Dist. 9. a. 2. q. 3. et d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Inferius pro quod opera multi codd. quod per opera, et pro in satisfactionem plurimi codd. in satisfactione.Dist. 9, a. 2, q. 3, and d. 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 f. — Below, for that the works many codices [read] that through the works, and for for satisfaction very many codices [read] in satisfaction. ---