Dist. 16, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 16
Pars II. De partibus subiectivis poenitentiae.
Articulus I. De poenitentia ante baptismum.
Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum oporteat poenitere et pro originali peccato. Secundo, utrum accedentem ad baptismum cum poenitentia necesse sit ante Sacramentum poenitentiae [agere].
Quaestio I. Utrum oporteat poenitere de originali peccato.
Circa primum, quod non sit necesse poenitere de originali, videtur:
1. Quia potentior est vis regenerativa Sacramenti quam vis propagativa hominis corrupti; sed per propagationem sine delectatione transfunditur originale1: ergo ab oppositis, immo multo fortius, per Sacramentum sine dolore deletur.
2. Item, omnis poenitentia est respectu voliti, non enim poenitet homo de eo quod noluit2; sed originale nunquam fuit voluntarium: ergo de illo non est necessaria poenitentia.
3. Item, omnis poenitentia est in actu volente; sed originale est in parvulo, in quo est morbus et remedium: ergo non oportet ipsum poenitere, cum non possit actu velle.
4. Item, omnis poenitentia est respectu actus proprii; poenitet enim homo de eo quod fecit, non de alieno; sed originale est per actum alienum: ergo etc.
5. Item, baptismus ordinatur contra originale3; sed non sunt duo remedia contra idem: ergo poenitentia non est remedium contra originale.
Contra:
1. De eo, de quo iuste arguitur homo ab alio, iuste arguitur a se ipso; sed Augustinus dicit in libro de Correctione et gratia4, quod peccator pro originali est arguendus: ergo peccator debet arguere se ipsum; sed homo de culpa arguit se ipsum per poenitentiam: ergo etc.
2. Item, sicut ira per zelum detestatur homo omnem iniustitiam in alio, ita poenitentia omnem iniustitiam in se ipso; sed originale est iniustitia in homine: ergo est detestanda per poenitentiam, et sic etc.
3. Item, omnis qui vult Deo reconciliari, necesse habet detestari omne quod a Deo separat; sed originale separat: ergo etc.
4. Item, de peccato, de quo iuste punitur a Deo, debet poenitens punire se ipsum; sed pro originali iuste punitur homo a Deo poena carentiae, quae est maxima poena, quia maximum damnum5: ergo pro eo debet se punire.
Conclusio. Quoad adultos scientes se habere peccatum originale, congruum est, ut hoc eis actu displiceat, tamen non est eis necessarium de eo conteri et poenitere.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod de originali peccato est loqui communiter et specialiter. Communiter, ut est in omnibus6; et sic ad eius deletionem non requiritur aliquis actus ex parte eius, in quo est, ut patet in parvulo. — Est etiam loqui specialiter, quantum ad adultos, qui se habere nesciunt; et quantum ad hos non oportet quod aliquis actus detestationis interveniat. — Est iterum loqui quantum ad adultos, qui se habere sciunt; et quantum ad tales congruum est, ut sibi displiceat, congruum, inquam, quod displiceat non in speciali, sed in generali, quia debet displicere omne quod a Deo separat; conteri autem non est necessarium7.
Ratio autem, quare non est necesse, ut conteratur, est, quia non est actu nostro commissum; et sic, licet in adulto sit talis originalis displicentia, non tamen est poenitentia, quia poenitentia, sicut ostensum est8, proprie est respectu voliti.
Rationes igitur probantes, quod non est necessaria poenitentia ad deletionem originalis, verae sunt et concedendae. Rationes omnes ad oppositum procedentes probant, quod congruum est, ut originale displiceat adulto, ne velit amplius in illo remanere9; sed quod teneatur se affligere, non concludunt, vel etiam poenitere.
Ad argumenta in oppositum:
Ad 1. Quod enim obiicitur, quod arguendus est pro originali; non intelligitur, quia ipsum contraxit, sed ne in ipso velit permanere.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod poenitentia10 est detestandum omne malum nostrum; dicendum, quod verum est: actum, non contractum; similiter videtur de ira per zelum in proximo.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod debet detestari omne malum, quod separat a Deo; dicendum, quod verum est, si illud sit ex propria voluntate introductum; et esto quod detestetur, non propter hoc poenitens dicitur.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod debet se punire de omni eo, de quo iuste punitur a Deo; dicendum, quod hoc verum esset, si Deus poena sensus puniret, vel etiam baptismus non sufficeret; nunc autem Deus non punit poena sensus, et baptismus sine omni poena satisfactoria sive assumta absolvit, sicut melius supra11 visum est.
I. Praeeunte Alexandro Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 1. a. 1.), S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; cfr. Suppl. q. 2. a. 2.) distinguit poenitentiam proprie dictam a large dicta, quae est omnis displicentia mali praeteriti. Prima, ut dicit, nullo modo potest esse de originali, secunda vero debet esse. Idem reapse docet S. Bonav., quidquid dicat Estius (hic § 6.), qui cum a S. Thoma discedere et insufficienter loqui asserit. Sed deceptus est falsa illa antiquarum editionum lectione: nec est necessarium, notata pag. 404, nota 5. Ceterum attento consideranti cohaerentiam totius sermonis iam patere debuit vera auctoris nostri sententia.
II. Seq. (2.) quaestio ab aliis doctoribus eodem sensu solvitur, sed plerumque, dum tractant de conditionibus ad baptismum ex parte baptizandi adulti requisitis. Cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 15. m. 1. a. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto supra d. 1. q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. S. III. q. 68. — De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. et q. 17. m. 3. a. 1. 5. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 48. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 1. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., d. 4. a. 1. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. 2.
---
Part II. On the subjective parts of penance.
Article I. On penance before baptism.
Concerning the first point, two questions are asked. First it is asked whether one must repent also of original sin. Second, whether for one approaching baptism with penance it is necessary, before the Sacrament, to [perform] penance.
Question I. Whether one must repent of original sin.
Concerning the first point, that it is not necessary to repent of original sin, it seems so:
1. Because the regenerative power of the Sacrament is mightier than the propagative power of corrupt man; but through propagation original sin is transmitted without pleasure1: therefore from the opposite cause — indeed much more strongly — through the Sacrament it is wiped away without pain.
2. Likewise, all penance is in respect of something willed, for a man does not repent of what he did not will2; but original sin was never voluntary: therefore penance for it is not necessary.
3. Likewise, all penance is in one who is actually willing; but original sin is in an infant, in whom there is the disease and the remedy: therefore there is no need for him to repent of it, since he cannot actually will.
4. Likewise, all penance is in respect of one's own act; for a man repents of what he himself did, not of another's deed; but original sin comes about through another's act: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, baptism is ordained against original sin3; but there are not two remedies against the same thing: therefore penance is not a remedy against original sin.
On the contrary:
1. Concerning that of which a man is justly accused by another, he is justly accused by himself; but Augustine says in the book On Correction and Grace4 that the sinner is to be accused for original sin: therefore the sinner ought to accuse himself; but a man accuses himself of fault through penance: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, just as by zealous anger a man detests every injustice in another, so by penance every injustice in himself; but original sin is an injustice in man: therefore it is to be detested through penance, and so etc.
3. Likewise, everyone who wills to be reconciled to God must necessarily detest everything that separates from God; but original sin separates: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, of the sin for which one is justly punished by God, the penitent ought to punish himself; but for original sin man is justly punished by God with the punishment of privation, which is the greatest punishment, because the greatest loss5: therefore he ought to punish himself for it.
Conclusion. As regards adults who know they have original sin, it is fitting that this should actually displease them; nevertheless it is not necessary for them to be contrite over it and to repent.
I respond: It must be said that one may speak of original sin in a general way and in a special way. Generally, as it is in all6; and thus for its deletion no act is required on the part of him in whom it is, as is clear in the case of an infant. — One may also speak of it specially, as regards adults who do not know they have it; and as regards these there is no need that any act of detestation intervene. — Again, one may speak as regards adults who know they have it; and as regards such it is fitting that it displease them — fitting, I say, that it displease not in particular, but in general, since one ought to be displeased at everything that separates from God; but to be contrite is not necessary7.
Now the reason why it is not necessary that one be contrite is that it was not committed by our own act; and so, although in an adult there be such a displeasure at original sin, it is nevertheless not penance, since penance, as has been shown8, is properly in respect of something willed.
Therefore the reasons proving that penance is not necessary for the deletion of original sin are true and to be granted. All the reasons proceeding to the opposite prove that it is fitting that original sin displease the adult, lest he wish to remain any longer in it9; but that he is bound to afflict himself they do not conclude, nor even to repent.
To the arguments to the contrary:
To 1. As to what is objected, that one is to be accused for original sin; this is not understood to mean because he contracted it, but lest he wish to remain in it.
To 2. As to what is objected, that penance10 is to detest every evil of ours; it must be said that this is true: of the act, not of what is contracted; the same seems to hold of zealous anger toward one's neighbor.
To 3. As to what is objected, that one ought to detest every evil that separates from God; it must be said that this is true if that evil has been introduced by one's own will; and granting that he detest it, he is not on that account called a penitent.
To 4. As to what is objected, that one ought to punish himself for everything for which he is justly punished by God; it must be said that this would be true if God punished with the punishment of sense, or even if baptism did not suffice; but as it is, God does not punish with the punishment of sense, and baptism absolves without any satisfactory or assumed punishment, as has better been seen above11.
I. With Alexander of Hales going before (Summa, p. IV, q. 15, m. 1, a. 1), St. Thomas (here q. 1, a. 2, little-question 2; cf. Supplement q. 2, a. 2) distinguishes penance properly so called from penance broadly so called, which is every displeasure at a past evil. The first, as he says, can in no way be of original sin, but the second ought to be. The same is in fact taught by St. Bonaventure, whatever Estius may say (here § 6), who asserts that Bonaventure departs from St. Thomas and speaks insufficiently. But Estius was deceived by that false reading of the old editions: nor is it necessary, as noted at p. 404, note 5. Moreover, to one who attentively considers the coherence of the whole discourse, the true mind of our author should already have been clear.
II. The following (second) question is resolved by other doctors in the same sense, but for the most part while they treat of the conditions required for baptism on the part of an adult to be baptized. Cf. Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. q. 15, m. 1, a. 2. — Scotus, in both Scripts, above d. 1, q. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, little-question 3; Summa III, q. 68. — On this first question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. and q. 17, m. 3, a. 1, 5, 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 48. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 1. — Scotus, here q. 1, n. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 4, little-question 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, d. 4, a. 1, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1, 2.
---
- 1Codd. F G poenitentia.Codices F G read poenitentia ("penance").
- 2Hic c. 4.Here, c. 4.
- 3Cfr. II. Sent. d. 31. a. [3. q. 1.] — Vide pro hoc et seqq. argg. supra d. 14. p. I. dub. 1. definitiones poenitentiae.Cf. Sentences II, d. 31, a. [3, q. 1]. — For this and the following arguments see above d. 14, p. I, dub. 1, the definitions of penance.
- 4Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1.As was shown above, d. 1, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1.
- 5August., de Correptione et gratia, c. 6. n. 9: «An vero ideo pravitas ista corripienda non est in homine, quia non eius propria qui corripitur, sed communis est omnibus? Immo vero corripiatur et in singulis quod est omnium... Corripiatur ergo origo damnabilis, ut ex dolore correptionis voluntas regenerationis oriatur». Ultima verba respicit S. Bonav. in solut. huius obiect.Augustine, On Correction and Grace, c. 6, n. 9: «But is that depravity therefore not to be reproved in a man because it is not proper to him who is reproved, but is common to all? On the contrary, let that which belongs to all be reproved also in each one... Let the damnable origin, then, be reproved, so that from the pain of reproof the will to regeneration may arise». St. Bonaventure has these last words in view in his solution of this objection.
- 6Vide supra pag. 321, nota 10.See above p. 321, note 10.
- 7Cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — In maiori post punitur cod. aa supplet homo.Cf. Sentences II, d. 33, a. 3, q. 1 ff. — In "maiori," after "punitur," codex aa supplies "homo."
- 8Alex. [Hal.], S. p. IV. q. 15. m. 1. a. 1: ut est morbus, quae lectio in antiqua scriptura parum differt a nostra et, attento supra posito 3. fundamento, verisimilis esse videtur. Inferius verbis se habere (quae bis occurrunt) Alex. Hal. praemittit huiusmodi morbum.Alexander [of Hales], Summa p. IV, q. 15, m. 1, a. 1: ut est morbus ("as it is a disease"), a reading which in the old text differs little from ours and, given the third foundation set out above, seems probable. Further down, to the words "se habere" (which occur twice) Alexander of Hales prefixes "huiusmodi morbum."
- 9Ita cod. X, cuius lectio confirmatur tum ex subnexis, tum ex codd. F G, qui minus bene ponunt conteri autem de ipso specialiter non est necessarium; alii codd. vel et hoc [scil. displicere] est necessarium (non apte, cum ante de eadem re dicatur congruum est), vel cum edd. perperam nec [cod. E non] est necessarium, vel, ut codd. M O, haec verba omittunt.So codex X, whose reading is confirmed both by what follows and by codices F G, which less well read conteri autem de ipso specialiter non est necessarium ("but to be contrite over it in particular is not necessary"); other codices read either and this [namely "to be displeased"] is necessary (not aptly, since just before it is said of the same matter that it is fitting), or with the editions wrongly nor [cod. E not] is it necessary, or, as codices M O, omit these words.
- 10In fundam. 2. — Codd. R T sensum sic exprimunt per poenitentiam, edd. legunt poenitentia est ad detestandum. Inferius post dicendum substituimus lectionem codd. M T U X, in aliis et edd. legitur: quod verum est, attamen non contractum (cfr. tom. II. pag. 767, nota 6. et pag. 826, nota 1.).On fundamentum 2. — Codices R T express the sense thus by poenitentiam; the editions read poenitentia est ad detestandum ("penance is to detest"). Below, after dicendum, we have substituted the reading of codices M T U X; in the others and the editions it reads: quod verum est, attamen non contractum (cf. vol. II, p. 767, note 6, and p. 826, note 1).
- 11Dist. 1. p. 1. a. [1. q. 2.] — Superius pro sine omni, quod exhibent codd. A F G I O U X Z, alii codd. et edd. etiam bene ab omni. In principio solut. multi codd. omittunt a Deo.D. 1, p. 1, a. [1, q. 2]. — Above, in place of sine omni ("without any"), which codices A F G I O U X Z give, other codices and the editions also read bene ab omni. At the beginning of the solution many codices omit a Deo ("by God").