Dist. 17, Part 1, Dubia
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Cassiodorus: Votum pro operatione iudicatur.1 Videtur enim male dicere, quia secundum hoc tantum valet, si quis habet voluntatem confitendi, quantum si confitetur: frustra ergo confitetur. — Item, aut Sacramentum confert aliquid habenti bonam voluntatem, aut nihil. Si aliquid: ergo non est idem et aequivalens velle et Sacramentum suscipere. Si nihil confert habenti bonam voluntatem, et nulli alii confert: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod votum hic dicitur firmum propositum, et hoc computatur pro operatione, non quia tantum valeat omnino, sed quia hoc etiam Deus acceptat, et si adsit votum, et desit facultas, Deus excusatum habet. Concedo ergo bene, quod semper aliquid recipit qui opere accipit Sacramentum et aliquam utilitatem habet; tamen ubi deest facultas, Deus reputat sufficiens ad impetrandum ipsum votum; et ubi adest, antequam perveniat ad opus, reputat conveniens ad obtinendum gratiam. Nec tamen frustra confitetur; si enim pro loco et tempore non confiteretur, verum votum non esset, aut esse desisteret, si prius esset2.
Dub. II
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod nemo potest confiteri nisi suscitatus. Videtur enim non esse verum quod dicit, quia secundum hoc, cum nullus mortuus teneatur ad sui suscitationem, quia hoc est impossibile, nullus peccator tenetur ad confessionem; quod est inconveniens.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod posse confiteri est dupliciter: aut peccatum detegendo, ut sit confessio manifesta, et sic potest fieri etiam a peccatore; aut ut sit confessio vere reconciliativa, et sic non potest fieri nisi a iusto et suscitato. Si enim alias fiat, absolvitur exterius, sed non interius. Nihil enim ad salutem valet alicui poenam temporalem taxare, quousque Dominus absolvat ab aeterna3.
Dub. III
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ut anima vita corporis, ita eius vita Deus est. Videtur enim esse falsum, quia anima vivificando informat corpus, sed Deus non est forma animae4. — Item, corpus privatum animae vita non resuscitatur nisi per miraculum: ergo videtur, quod iustificatio sit miraculosa; quod non videtur, cum nemo admiretur hoc, nec sit insolitum5.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sic Deus est vita animae, sicut anima corporis, quodam modo, et quodam modo non sic. In hoc enim est similitudo, quod quemadmodum corpus indiget anima et ab ipsa vivificatur, quamdiu illi coniungitur, et per eius separationem vilescit; sic, quamdiu anima unitur Deo per caritatem, vivificatur, et quando separatur ab eo, moritur et vilescit. In hoc autem est dissimilitudo, quia anima coniungitur naturaliter et naturaliter ex corruptione naturae separatur, ita quod appetitus et indigentia est in utroque, quia constituunt tertium6; ex Deo autem et anima non fit unum. Et praeterea, coniunctio illa est voluntatis ex utraque parte; et hinc est, quod quia voluntas nostra naturaliter est vertibilis, et divina misericordia prompta est misereri, quod resuscitatio animae non est miraculosa, sed ut proprius loquamur, est mirabilis7.
Dub. IV
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod non meretur iustificari qui in vita sua non vult peccatum confiteri. Videtur enim improprie loqui, quia iustificatio antecedit omne meritum: ergo nullus iustificari meretur. — Item quaeritur: cum omnes virtutes dentur homini, scilicet fides, caritas etc., quare magis vocatur iustificatio deletio culpae quam aliud? — Item, cum anima dicatur iustificari, vivificari8, sanari et renovari; quaeritur, quae sit differentia inter haec.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod iustificatio non cadit sub merito condigni, cadit tamen sub merito congrui9; dicitur autem reparatio animae iustificatio. Peccatum enim actuale est deordinatio sive obliquatio circa aliquem actum animae; et per hanc separatur anima a Deo et ex hoc incurrit duplex malum, scilicet difficultatem ad bonum, et ista dicitur vetustas, qua anima iam inveterata est; et pronitatem ad malum, et haec dicitur infirmitas; unde omne peccatum dicitur iniustitia, dicitur mors, dicitur vetustas, dicitur infirmitas10. Per oppositum igitur anima in adventu gratiae vivificatur, et ex susceptione virtutum ordinantium universas potentias iustificatur — et hoc quidem fit in instanti — unde iustificatio dicitur a iustitia generali; sed sanatur ulterius per gratiam Sacramentorum, et renovatur per bonum exercitium et fit semper ad bonum habilior. Unde dicit Apostolus secundae ad Corinthios quarto11: Quod renovatur de die in diem, sicut exterior de die in diem corrumpitur.
Unde notandum, quod peccatum uno modo dicitur infirmitas et vetustas, alio modo sequela peccati. Et primo quidem modo statim fit sanatio et renovatio; secundo modo successive, nec pervenitur ad perfectam sanitatem et novitatem nisi in gloria, eo quod semper manet pronitas et difficultas in via12.
Quod ergo quaeritur: quare dicitur iustificatio? dicendum, quod dicitur a iustitia generali, non a iustitia cardinali. — Quod quaeritur, quomodo haec differant, iam patet. — Patet etiam illud quod consuevit quaeri, cuius sit sanare. Dico enim, quod contritionis, in quantum est actus virtutum, est iustificare; sed eius, in quantum est sacramen-
talis, est curare — Sacramenta enim proprie sanant, et virtutes rectificant — sed in quantum gratiae, est vivificare; in quantum horum omnium, renovare13.
Dub. V
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Chrysostomus: Nisi purgatus fuerit ab omni peccato per poenitentiam et confessionem, vel baptismum. Quaeritur, quomodo ista tria distinguantur; videtur enim confessio ab his non differre.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod curatio a morbo est dupliciter: aut per virtutem, aut per Sacramentum. Si per virtutem, dicit per poenitentiam; si per Sacramentum, hoc est dupliciter, sicut duplex est tabula14; et sic est confessio et baptismus. — Aliter potest dici et melius, quod Chrysostomus loquitur de adultis, et hi purgantur duplici Sacramento, scilicet confessione et baptismo; et praeparatorium ad utrumque est contritio, et hanc nomine poenitentiae dat intelligi.
Dub. VI
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Nemo dicat: Occulte ago poenitentiam etc. Videtur enim ex hoc, quod poenitentia omnis sit facienda in publico, et illud videtur per litteram sequentem de Iob15: Si erubui peccata mea etc.; videtur secundum hoc, quod quilibet teneatur confiteri peccata sua in conspectu populi: ergo non est vere poenitens qui confitetur in privato.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Augustinus intelligit de occultatione, quae fit respectu sacerdotis, cui praecipit Dominus manifestare, non respectu aliarum personarum16.
Dub. VII
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Venialis est culpa, quam sequitur confessio delictorum. Videtur enim male dicere, quia culpa non alleviatur ex effectu sequenti, quamvis aggravetur: ergo videtur, quod mortale nunquam per confessionem fiat veniale. — Item, veniale non fit mortale, ergo nec e converso. — Item, si fit veniale quia Deus dimittit, pari ratione, immo multo fortiori deberet dicere de contritione.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in absolutione, quae est in contritione, culpa recipit veniam quantum ad poenam aeternam, in confessione vero partim recipit veniam, partim non, quia ad unam partem poenae ligatur, ab alia absolvitur. Et ideo dicit Ambrosius17, quod venialis efficitur, non quantum ad maculam, sed quantum ad obligationem ad poenam aliquam. Et sic patet illud.
Dub. VIII
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Dormiat in sacco. Non enim videtur competens, cum etiam multi in sericis non asperis18 poenitentiam agant.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod saccus accipitur pro qualicumque humiliatione, eo tropo, quo species accipitur pro genere19. — Vel dicendum, quod est perfectionis et consilium; nec intelligitur de sacco exterius, sed quod interius feratur vestimentum asperum. — Vel dicendum et melius, quod ita est intelligendum quod ingrediatur Ecclesiam, sicut dormire in sacco; non enim intelligitur de templo materiali, sed de unitate spirituali; sic interius debet esse amictus sacco, quia vera poenitentia debet esse humilis et austera, quorum utrumque notatur in sacco et fuit in Ninivitis. — Sed ista auctoritas non videtur ad propositum de confessione; et ideo dicendum, quod adducta est non propter confessionem, sed propter satisfactionem; facit tamen ad confessionem quasi a posteriori. Et sic patet illud.
DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I
In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Cassiodorus says: A vow is judged for the deed.1 For it seems to be said badly, because according to this it avails just as much if one has the will of confessing as if he confesses: therefore he confesses in vain. — Likewise, the Sacrament either confers something on one having a good will, or nothing. If something: therefore to will [it] and to receive the Sacrament are not the same and equivalent. If it confers nothing on one having a good will, and confers [it] on no other: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that a vow is here called a firm resolve, and this is reckoned for the deed, not because it avails just as much altogether, but because God also accepts this, and if the vow is present and the opportunity is lacking, God holds [the man] excused. I grant, therefore, well, that he who receives the Sacrament in deed always receives something and has some benefit; nevertheless, where the opportunity is lacking, God reckons the vow itself sufficient for obtaining [it]; and where it is present, before [one] arrives at the deed, He reckons [it] fit for obtaining grace. Nor yet does he confess in vain; for if he were not to confess according to place and time, the vow would not be a true [vow], or would cease to be, if it were [one] before2.
Doubt II
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that no one can confess unless raised up [from death]. For it seems not to be true what he says, because according to this, since no dead man is bound to his own raising-up, because this is impossible, no sinner is bound to confession; which is unfitting.
I respond: It must be said that to be able to confess is twofold: either by uncovering the sin, so that it be a manifest confession, and thus it can be done even by a sinner; or so that it be a truly reconciliative confession, and thus it cannot be done except by one who is just and raised up. For if it be done otherwise, [the man] is absolved outwardly, but not inwardly. For it avails nothing for salvation to assess a temporal penalty for anyone, until the Lord absolves [him] from the eternal [one]3.
Doubt III
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: That, as [the soul is] the life of the body, so its life is God. For it seems to be false, because the soul by giving life informs the body, but God is not the form of the soul4. — Likewise, a body deprived of the life of the soul is not raised up except by a miracle: therefore it seems that justification is miraculous; which does not seem [so], since no one wonders at this, nor is it unusual5.
I respond: It must be said that God is the life of the soul as the soul [is] of the body, in a certain way, and in a certain way not so. For in this there is a likeness, that just as the body needs the soul and is given life by it, as long as it is joined to it, and by its separation grows worthless; so, as long as the soul is united to God by charity, it is given life, and when it is separated from Him, it dies and grows worthless. But in this there is an unlikeness, because the soul is joined naturally and by the corruption of nature is naturally separated, so that appetite and need are in both, because they constitute a third [thing]6; but from God and the soul one [thing] is not made. And moreover, that conjunction is of the will on both sides; and hence it is, that because our will is by nature changeable, and the divine mercy is prompt to have mercy, the raising-up of the soul is not miraculous, but, to speak more properly, is wondrous7.
Doubt IV
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says, that he does not merit to be justified who in his life is unwilling to confess [his] sin. For it seems to speak improperly, because justification precedes all merit: therefore no one merits to be justified. — Likewise it is asked: since all the virtues are given to man, namely faith, charity, etc., why is justification rather called the deletion of fault than [anything] else? — Likewise, since the soul is said to be justified, given life8, healed, and renewed; it is asked what is the difference between these.
I respond: It must be said that justification does not fall under the merit of condignity, yet it falls under the merit of congruity9; and the repairing of the soul is called justification. For actual sin is a disorder or twisting about some act of the soul; and through this the soul is separated from God, and from this it incurs a double evil, namely difficulty toward the good, and this is called oldness, by which the soul is now grown old; and proneness toward evil, and this is called infirmity; whence every sin is called injustice, is called death, is called oldness, is called infirmity10. By the opposite, therefore, the soul at the coming of grace is given life, and from the reception of the virtues ordering all the powers is justified — and this indeed is done in an instant — whence justification is named from general justice; but it is further healed through the grace of the Sacraments, and is renewed through good exercise and becomes ever fitter for the good. Whence the Apostle says in the second to the Corinthians four11: That [the inward man] is renewed day by day, just as the outward [man] day by day is corrupted.
Whence it is to be noted that sin is in one way called infirmity and oldness, in another way the sequel of sin. And in the first way, indeed, healing and renewal are done at once; in the second way, successively, nor is perfect health and newness attained except in glory, because proneness and difficulty always remain in the way12.
As to what then is asked: why is it called justification? it must be said that it is named from general justice, not from cardinal justice. — As to what is asked, how these differ, it is now plain. — That too is plain which has been wont to be asked, to whom [the office] of healing belongs. For I say that it belongs to contrition, insofar as it is an act of the virtues, to justify; but to it, insofar as it is sacra-
mental, [it belongs] to cure — for the Sacraments properly heal, and the virtues rectify — but insofar as [it is] of grace, [it belongs] to give life; insofar as [it is] of all of these, to renew13.
Doubt V
Likewise it is asked about this, that Chrysostom says: Unless he be purged from every sin by penitence and confession, or baptism. It is asked how these three are distinguished; for it seems that confession does not differ from these.
I respond: It must be said that the curing of a disease is twofold: either by virtue, or by Sacrament. If by virtue, he means by penitence; if by Sacrament, this is twofold, just as there is a double plank14; and thus there is confession and baptism. — Otherwise it can be said, and better, that Chrysostom speaks of adults, and these are purged by a double Sacrament, namely confession and baptism; and the preparation for both is contrition, and this he gives to be understood by the name of penitence.
Doubt VI
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: Let no one say: I do penitence secretly etc. For from this it seems that all penitence is to be done in public, and that seems [to follow] from the following text concerning Job15: If I have blushed at my sins etc.; according to this it seems that everyone is bound to confess his sins in the sight of the people: therefore he who confesses in private is not truly penitent.
I respond: It must be said that Augustine understands [it] of the concealment which is done with respect to the priest, to whom the Lord commands [him] to make [them] manifest, not with respect to other persons16.
Doubt VII
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: It is a venial fault, which the confession of offenses follows. For it seems to be said badly, because a fault is not lightened by a following effect, although it is aggravated [by one]: therefore it seems that a mortal [sin] never becomes venial through confession. — Likewise, a venial [sin] does not become mortal, therefore neither [does it become so] conversely. — Likewise, if it becomes venial because God remits [it], by parity of reason, indeed by a much stronger [reason], he ought to say [the same] of contrition.
I respond: It must be said that in the absolution which is in contrition, the fault receives pardon as to the eternal penalty, but in confession it partly receives pardon, partly not, because it is bound to one part of the penalty [and] from another is absolved. And therefore Ambrose17 says, that it becomes venial, not as to the stain, but as to the obligation to some penalty. And so that is plain.
Doubt VIII
Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: Let him sleep in sackcloth. For it does not seem fitting, since even many [who are] in silks, not in rough [garments]18, do penitence.
I respond: It must be said that sackcloth is taken for any humiliation whatever, by that trope by which the species is taken for the genus19. — Or it must be said that it is [a matter] of perfection and a counsel; nor is it understood of sackcloth outwardly, but that inwardly a rough garment be worn. — Or it must be said, and better, that it is to be understood that he enter the Church just as [that he] sleep in sackcloth; for it is not understood of a material temple, but of spiritual unity; thus inwardly he ought to be clothed with sackcloth, because true penitence ought to be humble and austere, both of which are noted in sackcloth and were [found] in the Ninevites. — But this authority does not seem to the point concerning confession; and therefore it must be said that it is adduced not for the sake of confession, but for the sake of satisfaction; yet it bears on confession as it were a posteriori. And so that is plain.
- 1Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question.
- 2Cfr. II. Sent. d. 40. a. 1. q. 3. — Pro verum, quod exhibent codd. H L U (bb a secunda manu) et codd. F G K omittunt, alii cum edd. aut. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Cf. II Sentences, d. 40, a. 1, q. 3. — For verum ("true"), which codices H L U (bb by a second hand) exhibit and codices F G K omit, others with the editions [read] aut ("or"). — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 2; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- 3Vide infra p. II. a. 2. q. 3. et d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. scholion. — Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 5. § 7; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.See below, p. II, a. 2, q. 3, and d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, scholion. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 18, m. 4, a. 5, § 7; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- 4Cfr. supra pag. 229, nota 1.Cf. above, p. 229, note 1.
- 5Vide Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 90. et II. text. 4. seqq. (I. c. 3. et II. c. 1.). — Superius post coniungitur codd. R S supplent corpori.See Aristotle, On the Soul I, text 90, and II, text 4 ff. (I, c. 3, and II, c. 1). — Above, after coniungitur ("is joined") codices R S supply corpori ("to the body").
- 6Cfr. II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 2. ad 8, ubi distinctio inter miraculum et mirabile exponitur. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Cf. II Sentences, d. 18, a. 1, q. 2, ad 8, where the distinction between miracle and wonder is expounded. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- 7Ita codd. M U; in edd. omittitur iustificari, econtra in aliis codd. vivificari.So codices M U; in the editions iustificari ("to be justified") is omitted, [whereas] on the contrary in other codices [it reads] vivificari ("to be given life"). [This variant note glosses the Dub. IV enumeration word vivificari; printed as p.433's footer at the column seam — see 8 and the editorial caution in the Notes.]
- 8Ita codd. M U; in edd. omittitur iustificari, econtra in aliis codd. vivificari.So codices M U; in the editions iustificari ("to be justified") is omitted, [whereas] on the contrary in other codices [it reads] vivificari ("to be given life").
- 9Cfr. supra d. 15. p. I. q. 5.Cf. above, d. 15, p. I, q. 5.
- 10Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 31, 3. n. 13; Anselm., de Conceptu virgin. etc. c. 3.Cf. Augustine, Enarrations on the Psalms, Ps. 31, [sermon] 3, n. 13; Anselm, On the Virginal Conception etc., c. 3.
- 11Cfr. supra pag. 321, nota 1. De seq. propos. cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 6. — Pro universas cod. W diversas.Cf. above, p. 321, note 1. On the following proposition cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 6. — For universas ("all") codex W [reads] diversas ("diverse").
- 12Vers. 16: Licet is qui foris est noster homo corrumpatur, tamen is qui intus est, renovatur etc. — Post in diem cod. X addit homo interior.Verse 16: Though our outward man is corrupted, yet [the man] who is within is renewed etc. — After in diem ("day by day") codex X adds homo interior ("the inward man").
- 13Cfr. August., de Perfectione iustitiae hominis, c. 4. n. 9.Cf. Augustine, On the Perfection of Man's Justice, c. 4, n. 9.
- 14Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 17. m. 1. a. 1. seqq.; B. Albert., hic a. 17. seqq.; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1.The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 17, m. 1, a. 1 ff.; Blessed Albert, here a. 17 ff.; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1.
- 15Cap. 31, 33: Si abscondi quasi homo peccatum meum. Cfr. tamen hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, verba Augustini, ex quibus textus huius dubii sumtus est.Chapter 31:33: If as a man I have hidden my sin. Cf. however here the text of the Master, c. 1, the words of Augustine, from which the text of this doubt is taken.
- 16Vide infra p. III. a. 1. q. 3; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 11. § 8; B. Albert., hic a. 26. seq.; S. Thom., hic circa lit.See below, p. III, a. 1, q. 3; Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 18, m. 4, a. 11, § 8; Blessed Albert, here a. 26 f.; St. Thomas, here on the text.
- 17Cfr. supra d. 16. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. — Inferius pro pari ratione, immo edd. per confessionem. — In textu huius dubii. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 28; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.Cf. above, d. 16, p. II, a. 3, q. 1. — Below, for pari ratione, immo ("by parity of reason, indeed") the editions [read] per confessionem ("through confession"). — In the text of this doubt. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 28; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.
- 18Codd. D Q mollibus pro non asperis, edd. asperas poenitentias, cod. U mollibus asperas poenitentias, cod. O in ciliciis asperis.Codices D Q [read] mollibus ("in soft [garments]") for non asperis ("not rough"), the editions asperas poenitentias ("rough penances"), codex U mollibus asperas poenitentias ("in soft [garments], rough penances"), codex O in ciliciis asperis ("in rough hair-shirts").
- 19Cfr. August., III. de Doctr. christian. c. 34. n. 47. — Deinde post quod est perfectionis plures codd. omittunt et, edd. legunt: quod non est praeceptionis, sed consilii. — Verbum Hieronymi hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1, allegatum, ex quo textus huius dubii. — Cod. K (I a secunda manu) ingredi Ecclesiam est. Vat., pro ita posito sicut, hic prosequitur sic quod dormiat in sacco. — Ionae 3, 5. seqq. Cfr. Hieron. in hunc loc. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 30.Cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine III, c. 34, n. 47. — Then, after quod est perfectionis ("that it is [a matter] of perfection") several codices omit et ("and"), the editions read: quod non est praeceptionis, sed consilii ("that it is not of precept, but of counsel"). — The word of Jerome cited here in the text of the Master, c. 1, from which [comes] the text of this doubt. — Codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] ingredi Ecclesiam est ("is to enter the Church"). The Vatican [edition], for ita ("just as") placing sicut ("as"), here continues sic quod dormiat in sacco ("thus that he sleep in sackcloth"). — Jonah 3:5 ff. Cf. Jerome on this passage. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 30.