Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 17, Part 2, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17

Textus Latinus

p. 448

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: Quibusdam visum est sufficere, si soli Deo fiat confessio. Quaeritur ergo, utrum tales fuerint haeretici. Et quod non, videtur: quia Magister recitat hoc tanquam opinionem probabilem. — Sed contra hoc est, quia negans confessionem negat absolutionem, ac per hoc negat clavium virtutem¹, et ita manifeste est contra Scripturam, et ita contra fidem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si quis esset modo huius opinionis, esset ut haereticus reprobandus, quoniam in Concilio generali hoc determinatum est sub Innocentio tertio². Sed ante hanc determinationem hoc non erat haeresis, quia ipsi non negabant clavium potestatem, sed negabant necessitatem; bene concedebant, quod utile erat confiteri, et sacerdotes poterant absolvere. Ideo Magister³ et Gratianus in Decretis hoc referunt tanquam opinionem; tamen uterque improbat hoc et determinat in contrarium, et si quis pertinaciter assereret contrarium, esset haereticus iudicandus.

Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quod defendi non potest absolvi potest sive ablui. Videtur enim male dicere, quia nullum peccatum potest rationabiliter defendi; quare ergo dicit, quod defendi non potest?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod defensionem hic vocat excusationem⁴; et aliqua sunt peccata, quae sunt possibilia defendi, quia possunt excusari, et hoc ipso digna sunt venia; peccata vero, quae non possunt excusari de se, possunt habere ablutionem et absolutionem merito lacrymarum. Vult ergo dicere, quod non est aliquod peccatum tam grave, quod per lacrymas non fiat excusabile; nec aliquod ita pudorosum, quin verus dolor contritionis faciat confiteri. Et fletus et lacrymatio «consulit veniae»⁵, dum impetrat veniam; «et verecundiae», dum reddit peccatorem excusabilem, vel facit eum verecundiam vincere, ob quam non audebat confiteri. Et ita Ambrosius non intendit excludere confessionem,

p. 449

sed persuadere veram contritionem. Et sic patet intellectus auctoritatis et continuatio litterae⁶.

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non dico, quod confitearis conservo tuo, ut tibi ea exprobret. Secundum enim hoc videtur, quod cum omnis homo sit conservus, quod nulli possit peccatum revelari. — Praeterea, sigillum confessionis est arctissimum: ergo non debet timere, ut sibi exprobrentur⁷.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod dupliciter confitetur aliquis peccatum suum alicui: aut sicut homini, et hoc per quandam confabulationem; aut sicut Deo, et hoc per conscientiae revelationem, ut loquatur homini sicut Deo. Primo modo peccatum confiteri est confiteri conservo, quia confitetur homini ut homini; et ideo potest sibi exprobrare, quia ad sigillum confessionis non tenetur. Alio modo, quia confitetur homini ut Deo, et tunc non confitetur ut conservo, sed Deo; et quia homo non novit illud ut homo, non potest illud dicere, sed tenetur tacere; et tunc non est timendum, quod exprobret. Si autem aliquis confessiones revelaret, indignus esset honore sacerdotali; et rationabiliter confessio posset fieri alii, et ipse vitari, et hoc auctoritate superioris⁸.

Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Nescientibus aliis, ipsi in se voluntariae excommunicationis sententiam ferunt. Videtur enim male dicere, quia nullus potest se ipsum excommunicare. — Item, quantumcumque aliquis se puniat, nisi per iudicium sacerdotis non potest reconciliari.

Respondeo: Dicendum est, quod loquitur de notitia, qua quis novit ut homo. Aliquis tamen novit ut Deus, ad cuius arbitrium homo dicitur⁹ ferre in se excommunicationis sententiam, quando ab aliquo se arcet propria voluntate, a quo arcetur excommunicatus invitus, utpote a locis sacratis et participatione eucharistiae. — Et si tu obiicias, quod nemo debet se privare illo Sacramento, cum sit medicina; dicendum, quod dilatio medicinae, ut melior fiat praeparatio, potius est promotio quam retractio a bono. Ad illud autem Sacramentum maxime praeparatur homo per desiderium et per reverentiam; et quando aliquamdiu¹ se retrahit, tunc desiderabilius sumit et reverentius accedit, maxime ille qui a peccato resurgit; et ideo hoc dicit.

Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ut indulgentiam Dei nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequeant obtinere. Videtur enim ex hoc, quod absolutio sacerdotis per modum supplicandi sive deprecandi debeat fieri: non ergo per modum indicativum. Sed contra hoc est, quod omnium Sacramentorum forma est² per modum indicativum: ergo et huius Sacramenti.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod illud Sacramentum est contra actuale peccatum, ad cuius curationem concurrit actus voluntarius. Unde licet Sacramentum de se habeat virtutem, potest tamen impediri per pravam dispositionem existentem, et illam pravam dispositionem solus Deus amovet; et ideo congruum est, ut forma verborum sub utroque³ exprimatur; et sic est. Nam sacerdos primo absolutionem dat per modum deprecativum, dicens: Indulgentiam tribuat etc., et post: Et ego absolvo te⁴.

Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Docens, corporali praesentia confitenda peccata, non per scriptum manifestanda. Videtur enim ex hoc, quod qui ignorat linguam, non possit confiteri per interpretem; et etiam, quod mutus confiteri non possit, cum non possit ore dicere. — Item quaeritur, utrum interpres teneatur celare. Et videtur, quod sic, quia communicat in actu sacerdoti⁵. In contrarium est, quod peccator ei non confitetur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Augustinus⁶ loquitur de illis qui habent idioma et potentiam confitendi; qui non excusantur, immo tenentur proprio ore dicere propter meritum erubescentiae. — Quod obiicitur de interprete, dicendum, quod obligandus est per sacerdotem; et si non obligat, tamen tenetur, quia est auris sacerdotis. Unde communicat cum utroque⁷.

Dub. VII

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Fit veniale quod commisit mortale. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia species rerum non possunt transmutari⁸: ergo nec peccata.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod mortale fieri veniale est dupliciter: aut quantum ad maculam et deformitatem, aut quantum ad reatum. Si quantum ad maculam, hoc est impossibile; si quantum ad reatum, hoc potest intelligi dupliciter: vel quod iste fiat ille, et hoc nunquam fit; vel quia ille succedit huic, et hoc verum est, quia aliquis prius obligatur ad mortem aeternam et post per divinam misericordiam ad poenam temporalem⁹. — Vel distinguitur, quod veniale dicitur tribus modis: ex genere, ut mendacium iocosum; ex eventu, propter effectum divinae misericordiae; ex circumstantia, ut illud quod habet excusationem. Primo modo mortale non fit veniale, sed secundo modo¹⁰.

Dub. VIII

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quanto pluribus confitetur in spe veniae turpitudinem criminis etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut secundus sacerdos aliquid remittit, aut nihil. Si aliquid, similiter et tertius, et sic totum possunt remittere: ergo sine satisfactione per solam confessionem potest quis salvari; quod est inconveniens. Si¹¹ nihil remittit: ergo non consequitur veniam facilius. — Item, si prima confessio est Sacramentum perfectum, ergo si superaddit, videtur totum superfluum: ergo non consequitur veniam. — Item, quilibet sacerdos debet imponere poenitentiam; et tunc videtur, quod aut tenetur ad omnes, aut ad nullam. Si ad omnes, tunc difficilius consequitur veniam; si ad nullam, videtur, quod una confessio irritet aliam.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod confessio ordinatur ad multa, sed ad unum principaliter¹², et quantum ad principale aequivalet confiteri multis ut uni; quia unus sacerdos tantum dimittit de poena, quantum potest vi clavium. Nec debet iterari con-

p. 450

fessio propter finem principalem, nisi forte timeatur error fuisse in confessione. — Praeterea, aliae sunt utilitates annexae, et ad illas valet multoties confiteri, scilicet ad erubescentiam et intercessorum multiplicationem et ad humiliationem et gratiae augmentum. Ad principalem effectum valet quantum ad certificationem¹.

Ex his patent obiecta, quia secundus non facit novam remissionem nec debet de novo ligare, sed aliquid facile imponere, ut Pater noster etc.; et semper potest poenitens esse certior, quia, si non habuit effectum prima, potest esse, quod secunda habeat, quia melius invenit dispositum. — Et ex hoc patet ultimum².

English Translation

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: To some it seemed to suffice if confession be made to God alone. It is asked therefore whether such men were heretics. And that they were not, it seems: because the Master recounts this as a probable opinion. — But against this is that he who denies confession denies absolution, and through this denies the power of the keys¹, and thus is manifestly against Scripture, and thus against the faith.

I respond: It must be said that if anyone were now of this opinion, he would be reprobated as a heretic, since in a general Council this was determined under Innocent the Third². But before this determination this was not heresy, because they did not deny the power of the keys, but denied [its] necessity; they freely conceded that it was useful to confess, and that priests could absolve. Therefore the Master³ and Gratian in the Decrees report this as an opinion; yet each disapproves it and determines to the contrary, and if anyone were pertinaciously to assert the contrary, he would have to be judged a heretic.

Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: That which cannot be defended can be absolved or washed away. For it seems to be said badly, because no sin can be reasonably defended; why therefore does he say that it cannot be defended?

I respond: It must be said that he here calls "defense" excuse⁴; and there are some sins which it is possible to defend, because they can be excused, and by this very fact are worthy of pardon; but sins which cannot be excused of themselves can have washing-away and absolution by the merit of tears. He means therefore to say that there is no sin so grave that it does not become excusable through tears; nor any so shameful but that true sorrow of contrition makes [one] confess [it]. And weeping and lamentation «is advisable for pardon»⁵, while it obtains pardon; «and for shame», while it renders the sinner excusable, or makes him overcome the shame on account of which he did not dare to confess. And so Ambrose does not intend to exclude confession,

p. 449

but to persuade [to] true contrition. And thus the sense of the authority and the continuation of the text is plain⁶.

Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: I do not say that you should confess to your fellow-servant, so that he may reproach you with them. For according to this it seems that, since every man is a fellow-servant, a sin could be revealed to no one. — Moreover, the seal of confession is most strict: therefore one ought not to fear that they be reproached against him⁷.

I respond: It must be said that one confesses his sin to another in two ways: either as to a man, and this by a certain conversation; or as to God, and this by the revelation of conscience, so as to speak to the man as to God. In the first way to confess a sin is to confess to a fellow-servant, because he confesses to the man as to a man; and therefore he can reproach him, because he is not bound to the seal of confession. In the other way, because he confesses to the man as to God, and then he does not confess as to a fellow-servant, but to God; and because the man does not know it as a man, he cannot tell it, but is bound to be silent; and then there is nothing to fear, that he should reproach. But if anyone were to reveal confessions, he would be unworthy of priestly honor; and reasonably confession could be made to another, and he himself avoided, and this by the authority of a superior⁸.

Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: Without others knowing, they bear against themselves the sentence of a voluntary excommunication. For it seems to be said badly, because no one can excommunicate himself. — Likewise, however much one punishes himself, he cannot be reconciled except through the judgment of a priest.

I respond: It must be said that he speaks of the knowledge by which one knows as a man. Yet someone knows as God, at whose judgment a man is said⁹ to bear against himself the sentence of excommunication, when he debars himself from someone by his own will, from whom the excommunicate is debarred unwilling, namely from holy places and the participation of the Eucharist. — And if you object that no one ought to deprive himself of that Sacrament, since it is a medicine; it must be said that the deferring of the medicine, that a better preparation may be made, is rather a promotion than a withdrawal from the good. Now for that Sacrament a man is most prepared through desire and through reverence; and when he withdraws himself for some time¹, then he takes [it] more desirously and approaches more reverently, especially he who rises from sin; and therefore he says this.

Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: That they cannot obtain the indulgence of God except by the supplications of priests. For it seems from this that the absolution of the priest ought to be done by way of supplicating or of beseeching: therefore not by way of the indicative. But against this is that the form of all the Sacraments is² by way of the indicative: therefore [the form] of this Sacrament also.

I respond: It must be said that that Sacrament is against actual sin, to whose cure a voluntary act concurs. Whence although the Sacrament has power of itself, it can nevertheless be impeded by an existing evil disposition, and that evil disposition God alone removes; and therefore it is fitting that the form of the words be expressed under both³; and so it is. For the priest first gives absolution by way of beseeching, saying: May He grant indulgence etc., and afterward: And I absolve you⁴.

Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: Teaching that sins are to be confessed by bodily presence, not to be manifested by writing. For it seems from this that he who does not know the language cannot confess through an interpreter; and also, that a mute cannot confess, since he cannot speak with the mouth. — Likewise it is asked whether the interpreter is bound to conceal [it]. And it seems that he is, because he shares in the act with the priest⁵. On the contrary is that the sinner does not confess to him.

I respond: It must be said that Augustine⁶ speaks of those who have the language and the capacity of confessing; who are not excused, but rather are bound to speak with their own mouth on account of the merit of shame. — As to what is objected concerning the interpreter, it must be said that he is to be bound [to silence] by the priest; and if he does not bind [him], yet [the interpreter] is bound, because he is the ear of the priest. Whence he shares with both⁷.

Doubt VII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: That becomes venial which he committed [as] mortal. For it seems to say [something] false, because the species of things cannot be transmuted⁸: therefore neither [can] sins.

I respond: It must be said that for a mortal [sin] to become venial is twofold: either as to the stain and deformity, or as to the guilt. If as to the stain, this is impossible; if as to the guilt, this can be understood in two ways: either that this [sin] becomes that [one], and this never happens; or that the one succeeds the other, and this is true, because someone is first obliged to eternal death and afterward, through the divine mercy, to a temporal penalty⁹. — Or it is distinguished, that "venial" is said in three ways: by genus, as a jesting lie; by event, on account of the effect of the divine mercy; by circumstance, as that which has an excuse. In the first way a mortal [sin] does not become venial, but in the second way¹⁰.

Doubt VIII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: The more [priests] he confesses to in hope of pardon the foulness of his crime etc. For it seems to be said badly, because either the second priest remits something, or nothing. If something, likewise also the third, and thus they can remit the whole: therefore without satisfaction by confession alone one can be saved; which is unfitting. If¹¹ he remits nothing: therefore he does not obtain pardon more easily. — Likewise, if the first confession is a perfect Sacrament, then if he adds more, the whole seems superfluous: therefore he does not obtain pardon. — Likewise, every priest ought to impose penance; and then it seems that either he is bound to [impose] all [penances], or to [impose] none. If to all, then he obtains pardon more difficultly; if to none, it seems that one confession nullifies the other.

I respond: It must be said that confession is ordered to many things, but to one principally¹², and as to the principal [end] it is equivalent to confess to many as to one; because one priest remits as much of the penalty as he can by the power of the keys. Nor ought confession to be repeated

p. 450

on account of the principal end, unless perhaps it be feared that there was an error in the confession. — Moreover, there are other annexed utilities, and for these it is profitable to confess many times, namely for shame and the multiplication of intercessors and for humiliation and the increase of grace. For the principal effect it is profitable as to certification¹.

From these the objections are plain, because the second [priest] does not make a new remission nor ought he to bind anew, but to impose something easy, as the Our Father etc.; and the penitent can always be more certain, because, if the first [confession] did not have its effect, it can be that the second has [it], because it finds [him] better disposed. — And from this the last [objection] is plain².

Apparatus Criticus

1
Cfr. infra d. 18. p. I. a. 4. q. 1. seq.
Cf. below, d. 18, p. I, a. 4, q. 1 ff.
2
Vide supra a. 2. q. 1. fundam. 1. et in corp.
See above, a. 2, q. 1, foundation 1, and in the body.
3
Hic c. 2. Gratian., de Poenitentia, d. 1. per totam. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.
Here c. 2. Gratian, On Penitence, d. 1, throughout. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text.
4
Multi codd. perperam omittunt non. Edd. legunt: venia, sicut peccata naturae, quae possunt excusari de se; et aliqua sunt peccata, quae non possunt excusari de se, sed possunt etc.
Many codices wrongly omit non. The editions read: pardon, just as sins of nature, which can be excused of themselves; and there are some sins which cannot be excused of themselves, but can etc.
5
Ut dicit Ambros. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2, allegatus (post verba huius dubii). — Edd. falso sceleri et superius ponderosum pro pudorosum.
As Ambrose says, here in the text of the Master, c. 2, cited (after the words of this doubt). — The editions wrongly [read] sceleri and above ponderosum for pudorosum.
6
In edd. desideratur et continuatio litterae. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 33.
In the editions and the continuation of the text is wanting. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 33.
7
Cod. O supplet peccata, edd. substituunt exprobretur. Superius codd. omittunt peccatum. — De obligatione sigilli, qua tenetur confessarius, vide infra d. 21. p. II. n. 2. totum.
Codex O supplies peccata, the editions substitute exprobretur. Above, the codices omit peccatum. — Concerning the obligation of the seal, by which the confessor is bound, see below, d. 21, p. II, n. 2, the whole.
8
Cfr. infra d. 21. p. II. a. 2. q. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 33; S. Thom., hic circa lit.
Cf. below, d. 21, p. II, a. 2, q. 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 33; St. Thomas, here on the text.
9
Codd. K aa tenetur. Superius pro se puniat edd. poeniteat. Inferius pro invitus cod. H invite.
Codices K aa [read] tenetur. Above, for se puniat the editions [read] poeniteat. Below, for invitus codex H [reads] invite.
1
Edd. et quanto diutius aliquando, et mox tanto pro tunc. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 38; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
The editions [read] and the longer at times, and shortly so much for then. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 38; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
2
Codd. GH fit.
Codices GH [read] fit.
3
Cod. K (1a secunda manu) supplet modo. Mox post et sic est edd. addunt fieri congruum et consuetum.
Codex K (by a second hand) supplies modo. Shortly, after and so it is the editions add to be done [as] fitting and customary.
4
De hoc dub. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit., vide autem infra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.; ibid. in scholio alii auctores de hoc tractantes allegantur.
On this doubt [see] Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text, but see below, d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, in the body; in the same place, in the scholion, other authors treating of this are cited.
5
Cod. H sacerdotii.
Codex H [reads] sacerdotii.
6
Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2, ex quo est textus huius dubii. — Inferius pro qui [edd. quod] non excusantur, tenentur, quod habet cod. A, alii vel non [codd. IKP et talis non] vel nec excusatur... tenetur.
Here in the text of the Master, c. 2, from which is the text of this doubt. — Below, for who [editions which] are not excused, are bound, which codex A has, others [read] or not [codices IKP and such a one not] or neither is excused... is bound.
7
Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 5. § 9; B. Albert., hic a. 54; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 4. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 6. quaestiunc. 2.
The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 18, m. 4, a. 5, § 9; Blessed Albert, here a. 54; St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 4, sub-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 6, sub-question 2.
8
Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Metaph. text. 10. (VII. c. 3.), ubi essentiam rei comparat numero, qui, addita unitate vel sublata, non manet idem numerus, sed erit diversus specie.
Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics VIII, text 10 (VII, c. 3), where he compares the essence of a thing to a number, which, by a unit added or taken away, does not remain the same number, but will be diverse in species.
9
Vide supra d. 13. p. I. q. I. in corp.
See above, d. 13, p. I, q. I, in the body.
10
Cfr. supra d. 16. p. II. a. 3. q. I. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 33; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit. Ultimus dicit: Fit veniale per confessionem, id est dignum venia.
Cf. above, d. 16, p. II, a. 3, q. I. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 33; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. The last says: It becomes venial through confession, that is, worthy of pardon.
11
Plures codd. addunt ergo, edd. vero.
Several codices add ergo, the editions vero.
12
Vide supra a. 1. q. I. in fine.
See above, a. 1, q. I, at the end.
1
Codd. IK testificationem.
Codices IK [read] testificationem.
2
Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.
The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text.