Dist. 15, Part 1, Divisio Textus
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 15
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XV.
Pars I.
De poenitentia, specialiter contra erroneam opinionem, quod poenitentia potest fieri de uno peccato sine poenitentia de alio.
Et sicut praedictis auctoritatibus illorum error convincitur etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra reprobavit Magister errorem, qui attendebatur quantum ad poenitentiae iterationem. Hic reprobat errorem, qui consistit quantum ad poenitentiae divisionem; et hoc maxime ratione satisfactionis. Dicebant enim aliqui, quod poterat quis poenitere et satisfacere de aliquo crimine, ita quod de alio esset impoenitens.
Et quoniam iste error suam habebat defensionem, ideo haec pars dividitur in duas. In prima respondet et excludit defensionem, quam habebat ex auctoritate Scripturae. In secunda defensionem, quam habet ex auctoritatibus Patrum, ibi: Alias quoque auctoritates inducunt etc. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima respondet auctoritati. In secunda expositioni, ibi: Nam etsi super eundem locum Hieronymus etc. Quaelibet harum partium duas habet. In prima opponit. In secunda solvit: et hoc satis manifestum est in littera.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam huius partis sex incidunt hic quaerenda.
Primo quaeritur, utrum possibile sit Deo reconciliari per satisfactionem.
Secundo, utrum sit possibile Deo satisfacere de uno peccato, alio retento.
Tertio, utrum extra caritatem abstinentem a peccatis possibile sit satisfacere.
Quarto, utrum opera satisfactoria facta extra caritatem vivificentur adveniente caritate et debeant computari in sortem.
Quinto quaeritur, utrum per talia opera aliquid mereatur.
Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, quid sit illud quod meretur.
ARTICULUS UNICUS.
De satisfactione in genere.
QUAESTIO I.
Utrum possibile sit reconciliari Deo per satisfactionem.
---
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XV.
Part I.
On penance, specifically against the erroneous opinion that penance can be done for one sin without penance for another.
And just as by the aforesaid authorities their error is convicted, etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master refuted an error which was directed to the repetition of penance. Here he refutes an error which consists in the division of penance; and this chiefly by reason of satisfaction. For certain ones said that one could repent and make satisfaction for some crime, in such a way that he was impenitent of another.
And because this error had its defense, therefore this part is divided into two. In the first he answers and excludes the defense which it had from the authority of Scripture. In the second, the defense which it has from the authorities of the Fathers, there: They also adduce other authorities, etc. The first is divided into two. In the first he answers the authority. In the second, the exposition, there: For even if upon the same passage Jerome, etc. Each of these parts has two. In the first he raises the objection. In the second he resolves it: and this is sufficiently manifest in the text.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the understanding of this part six [things] arise here to be asked.
First it is asked, whether it is possible to be reconciled to God through satisfaction.
Second, whether it is possible to make satisfaction to God for one sin, another being retained.
Third, whether it is possible to make satisfaction outside the charity that abstains from sins.
Fourth, whether works of satisfaction done outside charity are vivified upon the coming of charity and ought to be reckoned to the lot [of merit].
Fifth, it is asked, whether through such works one merits anything.
Sixth and last it is asked, what that is which is merited.
SINGLE ARTICLE.
On satisfaction in general.
QUESTION I.
Whether it is possible to be reconciled to God through satisfaction.
---