Dist. 17, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17
Quaestio IV. Utrum ad iustificationem necessaria sit confessio.
Quarto quaeritur, utrum ad iustificationem necessaria sit confessio. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Proverbiorum vigesimo octavo1: Qui abscondit scelera sua non dirigetur, qui autem confessus fuerit et reliquerit ea misericordiam consequetur; sed iustificatio nihil aliud est quam spiritualis directio, quia «iustitia est rectitudo voluntatis»: cum ergo nullus possit dirigi, nisi praecedat confessio, nullus sine confessione praevia potest iustificari.
2. Item, Isaiae quadragesimo tertio2: Narra, si quid habes, ut iustificeris; sicut exponit Ambrosius et Origenes, hoc intelligitur de narratione culpae, quae est in confessione: ergo haec necessaria est ad iustificationem.
3. Item, Ioannes Chrysostomus3: «Non potest quis gratiam accipere, nisi purgatus fuerit ab omni peccato per confessionem»: ergo confessio necessaria est.
4. Item, Ambrosius in libro de Paradiso4: «Non potest quis iustificari a peccato ante confessionem»: ergo confessio necessario praeit.
5. Item, ratione videtur: quia omnis habens gratiam et iustitiam ingreditur in regnum caelorum, nec aliquis potest portam claudere, salva iustitia et gratia; sed nullus potest intrare in regnum caelorum nisi per ostiarium Petrum, cum data sit ei clavis, a qua nullus est exemptus5: ergo nullus potest obtinere gratiam nec habere remissionem culpae, nisi habeat per auctoritatem summi Pontificis et eorum qui in hoc communicant. Sed nullus absolvitur a sacerdote sine confessione praevia: ergo etc.
6. Item, poenitentia est Sacramentum necessarium ad salutem, ergo partes eius sunt necessariae; sed prima, id est contritio, est necessaria ad impii iustificationem, ut visum est6: ergo pari ratione necessaria est confessio.
Contra hoc obiicitur, sicut Magister obiicit:
1. Primo auctoritate Psalmi7: Dixi, confitebor etc.; Cassiodorus: «Magna pietas Dei, quod ad solam promissionem peccatum dimittit. Votum enim pro operatione iudicatur».
2. Item, Augustinus super illud idem8: «Luce clarius constat, cordis contritione, non oris confessione, peccata dimitti»; sed iustificatio est ibi, ubi est peccati dimissio: ergo sine confessione est iustificatio, et sic etc. — Ad hoc etiam sunt auctoritates Magistri in littera9.
3. Item ratione videtur: quia pronior est Deus ad miserandum quam ad condemnandum10; sed solo actu cordis consentaneo subtrahit gratiam: ergo multo fortius actu cordis peccata dimittit.
4. Item, «Deus non alligavit suam potentiam Sacramentis11»: ergo quandocumque homo facit quod in se est, Deus facit quod in se est: ergo si doleat quis de culpa, si non sit confessor, vel confessio extra, Deus facit quod est in se: ergo iustificat.
### Conclusio. Iustificatio potest esse sine confessione.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si iustificatio dicatur iustitiae infusio, non est necessaria confessio, sicut expresse ostendunt illae rationes, quae inductae sunt. Unde solum ista quatuor sunt necessaria, scilicet gratiae infusio, motus liberi arbitrii, contritio et peccati expulsio. Secundum enim rectum ordinem, sicut patebit12, confessio sequitur tempore et natura contritionem; et si sequitur contritionem, cum ipsa contritio non sit sine iustificatione, nec e converso, ipsa iustificatio potest esse sine confessione.
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de illis auctoritatibus, dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus13, «quamvis aliquis iustificari possit sine Sacramentis, tamen nullus iustificatur contemnens Sacramenta». Quoniam igitur confessio est peccantibus imposita, impossibile est, aliquem iustificari, qui non habeat confessionem in facto vel in proposito. Si enim confessionem contemnat, quantumcumque doleat, non acquirit iustitiam. Si autem confessionem habeat in proposito, cum Deus bonam voluntatem et propositum in talibus reputet pro facto, si vere bona et efficax est, tunc, si adsit dolor, potest esse iustificatus. Ideo pro tanto dicunt auctoritates Sanctorum et rationes praedictae, quod confessio necessaria sit ad iustificationem. Voluntatem enim confitendi confessionem vocant, et hoc patet discurrendo per singulas.
1. Nam quod primo dicitur: Qui abscondit scelera; constans est, quod loquitur de hypocrita, quia non tantum caret proposito confitendi, immo etiam habet malitiam celandi et excusandi.
2. 3. 4. Ad illud similiter quod dicitur: Dic tu iniquitates etc.; dicendum, quod quando homo vult huic mandato obedire, se disponit de congruo ad gratiam; et divina misericordia largissima, cum invenit animam dispositam, gratiam tribuit, ac si esset confessa per sermonem. — Aliae vero duae auctoritates ita intelligendae sunt; vel si intelligantur de actu confitendi, tunc sumunt confessionem pro peccati recognitione, quae interius est inter animam et Deum, et sic non concludunt.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullus intrat sine potestate clavium; dicendum, quod sine potestate clavium intrare dupliciter potest intelligi: aut sine potestate, ita quod intelligatur contrarie, sicut contemnens clavem Petri; vel sine potestate, ita quod privative: et adhuc dupliciter: vel simpliciter privative, ita quod non habet effectum absolutionis nec in opere nec in devotione sive in desiderio; aut ita, quod habet in devotione et proposito, et ita quodam modo habet. Primo et secundo modo non intrat nec iustificatur, sed tertio modo intrat et aliquo modo per clavem, licet non sic, sicut ille qui absolvitur actualiter.
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod poenitentia est Sacramentum necessarium; dicendum, quod nullum Sacramentum est adeo necessarium, quin fides et devotio suppleat locum eius, sicut patet in baptismo14; et ideo sine Sacramento poenitentiae salus alicui esse potest. — Et quod obiicitur de contritione, quod est necessaria; dicendum, quod non est necessaria, secundum quod est pars poenitentiae-Sacramenti, sed secundum quod est actus poenitentiae-virtutis; et illa est prima virtus, sine qua non est salus peccatori adulto15, et simul est in actu et habitu virtus illa in ipsa infusione, quia invenit liberum arbitrium in actu sibi conformi in iustificatione, ut visum est16. Praeterea, esto quod contritio poenitentialis, prout est sacramentalis, esset necessaria, non sequitur propter hoc de confessione, quae est actus exterior, superaddens contritioni.
La. Scholion ad articulum I (§I–VI, ad quaestiones I–IV) cum Quaestione I redditur — vide bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1. En. The Article I scholion (§I–VI, covering questions I–IV) is rendered with Question I — see bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1.
---
Question IV. Whether for justification confession is necessary.
Fourth, it is asked whether for justification confession is necessary. And that it is, seems to be the case:
1. Proverbs twenty-eight1: He that hideth his sins shall not prosper, but he that shall confess and forsake them shall obtain mercy; but justification is nothing else than spiritual direction, since "justice is the rectitude of the will": since therefore no one can be directed unless confession precedes, no one can be justified without prior confession.
2. Likewise, Isaiah forty-three2: Tell, if thou hast anything, that thou mayest be justified; as Ambrose and Origen expound, this is understood of the recounting of fault, which is in confession: therefore this is necessary for justification.
3. Likewise, John Chrysostom3: "No one can receive grace unless he has been purged from every sin by confession": therefore confession is necessary.
4. Likewise, Ambrose in the book On Paradise4: "No one can be justified from sin before confession": therefore confession necessarily comes first.
5. Likewise, it seems by reason: because everyone having grace and justice enters into the kingdom of heaven, nor can anyone shut the gate, justice and grace remaining intact; but no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except through the doorkeeper Peter, since the key has been given to him, from which no one is exempt5: therefore no one can obtain grace nor have remission of fault unless he have it by the authority of the supreme Pontiff and of those who share in this. But no one is absolved by a priest without prior confession: therefore etc.
6. Likewise, penance is a Sacrament necessary for salvation, therefore its parts are necessary; but the first, that is contrition, is necessary for the justification of the ungodly, as has been seen6: therefore by parity of reason confession is necessary.
On the contrary it is objected, as the Master objects:
1. First by the authority of the Psalm7: I said, I will confess etc.; Cassiodorus: "Great is the mercy of God, that He forgives sin at the mere promise. For the vow is judged in place of the deed."
2. Likewise, Augustine upon that same passage8: "It is clearer than light that sins are forgiven by the contrition of the heart, not by the confession of the mouth"; but justification is there, where there is the remission of sin: therefore justification is without confession, and so etc. — To this also there are authorities of the Master in the text9.
3. Likewise it seems by reason: because God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn10; but by the act of the consenting heart alone He withdraws grace: therefore much more powerfully by an act of the heart does He forgive sins.
4. Likewise, "God has not bound His power to the Sacraments11": therefore whenever a man does what is in him, God does what is in Him: therefore if anyone grieves over his fault, even if there be no confessor, or confession be lacking outwardly, God does what is in Him: therefore He justifies.
### Conclusion. Justification can be without confession.
I respond: It must be said that if justification be called the infusion of justice, confession is not necessary, as those reasons which have been adduced expressly show. Hence only these four things are necessary, namely the infusion of grace, the motion of free choice, contrition, and the expulsion of sin. For according to the right order, as will be made clear12, confession follows contrition in time and in nature; and if it follows contrition, since contrition itself is not without justification, nor conversely, justification itself can be without confession.
To that, then, which is objected on the contrary from those authorities, it must be said that, as Augustine says13, "although someone can be justified without the Sacraments, yet no one is justified who despises the Sacraments." Since therefore confession is imposed upon sinners, it is impossible for anyone to be justified who does not have confession in deed or in intention. For if he despise confession, however much he grieve, he does not acquire justice. But if he have confession in intention, since God reckons the good will and intention in such matters as a deed, if it be truly good and effective, then, if grief be present, he can be justified. Therefore so far the authorities of the Saints and the aforesaid reasons say that confession is necessary for justification. For they call the will of confessing "confession," and this is clear by going through them one by one.
1. For as to what is said first: He that hideth his sins; it is settled that it speaks of the hypocrite, since he not only lacks the intention of confessing, but rather has the malice of concealing and excusing.
2. 3. 4. To that likewise which is said: Tell thou thine iniquities etc.; it must be said that when a man wishes to obey this command, he disposes himself congruously toward grace; and the most abundant divine mercy, when it finds the soul disposed, bestows grace, as if it had confessed by speech. — But the other two authorities are to be understood thus: either, if they be understood of the act of confessing, then they take confession for the recognition of sin, which is inwardly between the soul and God, and so they do not conclude.
5. To that which is objected, that no one enters without the power of the keys; it must be said that to enter without the power of the keys can be understood in two ways: either without the power, in such a way that it be understood contrarily, as one despising the key of Peter; or without the power, in such a way that it be privatively: and this still in two ways: either simply privatively, in such a way that he does not have the effect of absolution either in act or in devotion or in desire; or in such a way that he has it in devotion and intention, and so in a certain manner has it. In the first and second way he neither enters nor is justified, but in the third way he enters and in some manner through the key, although not as does he who is actually absolved.
6. To that which is objected, that penance is a necessary Sacrament; it must be said that no Sacrament is so necessary but that faith and devotion supply its place, as is clear in baptism14; and therefore salvation can belong to someone without the Sacrament of penance. — And as to what is objected concerning contrition, that it is necessary; it must be said that it is not necessary insofar as it is part of the Sacrament of penance, but insofar as it is an act of the virtue of penance; and that is the first virtue, without which there is no salvation for an adult sinner15, and that virtue is at once in act and in habit in the very infusion, because it finds free choice in an act conformed to itself in justification, as has been seen16. Moreover, granted that penitential contrition, insofar as it is sacramental, were necessary, it does not follow on this account regarding confession, which is an exterior act, superadded to contrition.
La. Scholion ad articulum I (§I–VI, ad quaestiones I–IV) cum Quaestione I redditur — vide bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1. En. The Article I scholion (§I–VI, covering questions I–IV) is rendered with Question I — see bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a1-q1.
---
- 1Vers. 13. — Definitio iustitiae inferius allata est Anselmi, Dialog. de veritate, c. 12.Prov. 28, verse 13. — The definition of justice adduced below is Anselm's, Dialogue on Truth, c. 12.
- 2Vers. 26. — Ambros. de Paradiso, c. 14. n. 71. (Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.); Origen., in Levit. homil. 3. n. 4. — Pro Origenes cod. Z Augustinus.Isa. 43, verse 26. — Ambrose, On Paradise, c. 14, n. 71. (See here the Master's text, c. 1.); Origen, on Leviticus, homily 3, n. 4. — For Origen codex Z has Augustine.
- 3Vide supra pag. 414, nota 3.See above, page 414, note 3.
- 4Cap. 14. n. 71. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.Chapter 14, n. 71. See here the Master's text, c. 1.
- 5Cfr. Matth. 16, 19. et Ioan. 20, 23.Cf. Matt. 16, 19 and John 20, 23.
- 6Quaest. praeced. — Quoad maiorem notandum, quod agatur hic de iustificatione impii sive peccatoris in mortali existentis. — Pro sed prima edd. sed poenitentia.The preceding question. — As to the major premise it is to be noted that the discussion here is of the justification of the ungodly, that is, of one existing in mortal sin. — For but the first the editions have but penance.
- 7Psalm. 31, 5. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, ubi etiam verba Cassiodori.Ps. 31, 5. — Cf. here the Master's text, c. 1, where also the words of Cassiodorus are found.
- 8Verba haec non sunt Augustini, sed Gratiani, C. Si cui etiam (30.), de Poenitentia, d. 1; verba Augustini vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. — In cod. M huic arg. praemittitur aliud una cum responsione, petitum ex August., scil. quod qui vult habere iustitiam habeat eam: ergo contritio absque confessione sufficit. Responsio in eo versatur quod August. hanc sententiam retractaverit, addendo «si gratia concomitatur voluntatem» (cfr. I. Retract. c. 9. n. 4.), quod solum fit in confessione, si adsit facultas confitendi.These words are not Augustine's, but Gratian's, in the canon Si cui etiam (30), On Penance, d. 1; for the words of Augustine see here in the Master's text, c. 1. — In codex M another argument together with its reply is set before this one, drawn from Augustine, namely, that he who wishes to have justice may have it: therefore contrition without confession suffices. The reply turns on the fact that Augustine retracted this opinion, adding "if grace accompanies the will" (cf. I Retractations c. 9, n. 4), which happens only in confession, if there be opportunity of confessing.
- 9Hic c. 1.Here, c. 1.
- 10Vide supra pag. 333, nota 3. — Codd. E L miserandum.See above, page 333, note 3. — Codices E L have miserandum [to be pitied].
- 11Ut dicit Magister supra in lit. d. 1. c. 5. Cfr. Hug. a S. Vict., l. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 5. — Inferius pro confessor codd. R S T U bb confessus.As the Master says above in the text, d. 1, c. 5. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, part IX, c. 5. — Below, for confessor codices R S T U bb have confessus.
- 12Art. seq. q. 4.The following article, question 4.
- 13Libr. IV. de Baptismo contra Donatist. c. 25. n. ... supra pag. 107, nota 6.Book IV, On Baptism, against the Donatists, c. 25, n. ...; see above, page 107, note 6.
- 14Cod. M addit voluntas, edd. omittunt vere. — Pro vere bona et efficax, intellige de «contritione caritate perfecta».Codex M adds will, the editions omit truly. — For truly good and effective, understand it of "contrition perfected by charity."
- 15A cod. M suppletur peccatum suum. Superius pro quia non Vat. cum paucis codd. qui non.From codex M his sin is supplied. Above, for because not, the Vatican edition with a few codices has who not.
- 16Cfr. supra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Paulo superius post fides codd. R S T addunt Dei. — Quaest. praeced. — Superius post infusione Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. supplet gratiae. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.Cf. above d. 16, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — A little earlier, after faith codices R S T add of God. — The preceding question. — Above, after infusion the Vatican edition with one or another codex supplies of grace. — See the scholion on question 1 of this article.