Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 17, Part 3, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17

Textus Latinus

p. 463

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: Si tamen desit sacerdos, proximo vel socio facienda est confessio. Videtur enim male dicere, quia laicus vel socius non potest absolvere: ergo nec locum sacerdotis supplere.

Respondeo: Non fit socio, ut suppleatur locus sacerdotis, vel confessio-Sacramentum ex hoc habeatur; sed ut voluntas confitentis probetur et innotescat, ut totum, quod in se est, faciat. — Dixerunt tamen aliqui, quod aliquo modo absolvitur iste in ista confessione. Dicunt enim¹, quod quinque modis habetur potestas absolvendi, scilicet auctoritate, et sic est Dei; excellentia, et sic est Christi hominis; potestate sive auctoritate commissa, et sic est sacerdotis; merito vitae, et sic est iusti et sancti; et virtute unitatis ecclesiasticae, et sic est cuiuslibet viri fidelis. Et ideo dicunt, quod talis confessio quodam modo est Sacramentum Ecclesiae. — Probabilius tamen est dicere, quod non sit Sacramentum Ecclesiae, cum deficiat² ibi formale, scilicet potestas clavis, sed est aliquid loco eius.

Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Qui confitetur sacerdoti meliori quam potest confiteatur. Videtur enim secundum hoc, quod si sacerdos suus non est optimus, quod possit eum deserere, quod est contra canones³.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ipse loquitur de homine qui est in sua libertate, antequam committat se alicui sacerdoti, quod debet eligere quanto meliorem potest. — Si autem post electionem intelligatur; hoc est intelligendum cum licentia sui sacerdotis, vel ita, quod primum satisfaciat proprio sacerdoti, ut nullo modo contemnatur sacerdotis auctoritas et ministerium.

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quaerendus est sacerdos sapiens et discretus; quare hoc debeat fieri. Nam cum simplex sacerdos ita bonam Missam cantet, sicut et sapiens, et ita bene baptizet: ergo videtur, quod ita bene absolvat. — Quaeritur etiam, utrum simplex sacerdos peccet in absolvendo, vel etiam in audiendo confessiones. Et quod sic, videtur per illud quod ante praedixit⁴: «Talem oportet esse, qui aliorum crimina iudicat». Item, qui intromittit se facere quod nescit, usurpat alienum; et omnis talis peccat mortaliter sive graviter: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sive scientia sit clavis, sive non⁵, tamen necessaria est sacerdoti tanta scientia, quod sciat discernere in peccatis communibus, et quod sit veniale, et quod mortale; et quod sciat semper, ad quae peccata potestas sua potest se extendere; et hoc, quia alia poenitentia danda est pro veniali, alia pro mortali; et si ad aliquod genus peccati non potest extendere manum⁶, illud necessarium est ei cognoscere, alioquin in periculum animae suae et confitentium audit confessiones. Et si subditi cognoscunt eius simplicitatem, tenentur discretos consulere, alioquin utrique peccant graviter. Et de hac discretione loquitur Augustinus⁷. — Alia est discretio, qua sciat per habitum acquisitum discernere inter perplexitates peccatorum, et haec est de bene esse; in talibus autem debet securiorem viam semper eligere et sapientes consulere.

p. 464

Ad illud quod obiicitur de Missa, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia ibi est vis in verbis a Domino statutis, hic autem requiritur, ut consulat et iudicet secundum conscientiam, quae est in ipso. Quod quaeritur, utrum peccet; dicendum, quod carens discretione necessaria peccat ipse, et qui eum sustinet; de alia non credo.

Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Nec necesse est, ut quod sacerdoti semel confessi sumus iterum confiteamur.⁸ Ex hac enim littera videtur, quod peccata, quae semel homo confessus est, non debeat iterum confiteri, sive non sit necesse. Et illud videtur per rationem: quia in eodem foro non debet quis bis puniri⁹: si ergo quis pro peccato commisso semel punitus est, videtur etc. — Item, certum est, quod peccata nunquam redeunt secundum veritatem¹⁰: ergo si semel absolutus est, nunquam ligatur iterum: ergo nunquam tenetur iterum eadem confiteri. — Contra ponatur, quod quis ficte confiteatur: constans est, quod talis non reportat commodum, immo damnum de confessione¹¹. Si ergo nihil remanet in eo de confessione, quia characterem non imprimit; ergo tenetur iterum confiteri. — Item, ponatur, quod aliquis rememoretur peccati mortalis, quod oblitus fuit confiteri; constans est, quod non est confessus integre pro statu, in quo nunc est; sed confessio, quae non est integra, sicut infra¹² videbitur, pro nulla reputanda est: ergo tenetur iterum totum confiteri, ac si nunquam fuisset confessus. — Item, ponatur, quod aliquis recidivet; constans est, quod peccatum sequens ex praecedentibus aggravatur tum propter ingratitudinem, tum propter consuetudinem¹³: ergo non potest sciri quantitas peccati nec qualitas confitentis, nisi sciatur totum: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si confessio legitime facta est, et ea quae ad ipsam pertinent servata; non oportet iterum confiteri quae alias sumus confessi. Sed quia contingit, quod confessio, vel quando primo facta est, irrita fuit, vel postmodum irritatur; ideo oportet aliquando iterari.

Sunt autem quatuor casus communes et usitati, in quibus doctores dixerunt, confessionem esse iterandam. Primus est propter enormitatem sceleris, ob quam oportet peccatorem ad superiorem remitti, qui confessionem remissi audire debet et absolvere, nisi malit alteri committere. — Secundus est propter ignorantiam sacerdotis, utpote quando sacerdos ignarus est; quaerendus enim est tunc sacerdos, qui sciat ligare et solvere, et ei iterum est confitendum vel ex licentia sacerdotis proprii, vel auctoritate superioris¹⁴. — Tertius casus est propter malitiam fictionis, ut si scienter aliquod peccatum in corde retinuit, vel si accessit cum voluntate peccandi. — Quartus est propter contemptum satisfactionis, ut quando negligit et contemnit facere poenitentiam sibi iniunctam. Et intelligantur isti duo ultimi casus, quando mutat sacerdotem. Si enim ad eundem revertitur, tunc distinguendum: quia aut recenter confessus est, aut iam de memoria sunt elapsa ab ipso sacerdote propter diuturnitatem temporis. In primo casu non tenetur, in secundo tenetur. — In his casibus communiter concordant omnes confessionem iterandam esse.

Sunt et alii duo casus¹⁵, in quibus doctores sibi adversantur. Aliqui enim dicunt, quod tenetur etiam homo iterare confessionem propter peccati obliti recordationem, et propter recidivationem, quoniam aliter confessio integra non est; et confessionem oportet habere integritatem ad hoc, ut habeat utilitatem, sicut melius patebit infra¹⁶. — Alii dicunt, quod sufficit, in generali dicere, se alias peccasse et hoc de novo peccatum commisisse, vel recordatum esse in speciali, quoniam prior confessio valuit et bona fuit. — Alii dicunt, quod peccata eiusdem generis tenetur referre in speciali, sed alia in generali; et sic scitur et consuetudo et ingratitudo. — Sed quid super his sit sentiendum, melius patebit in distinctione vigesima prima¹⁷; ad praesens autem tantum dixisse sufficit.

Quodsi igitur velis praecise scire, quid sit necessarium in iteratione confessionis; dicendum, quod aut est propter defectum ex parte sacerdotis; et hoc non est nisi dupliciter: aut quia nescit absolvere, aut quia non potest; et sic sunt duo. — Aut propter defectum ex parte poenitentis, et hoc dupliciter: aut quia contemnit sacerdotis absolutionem, aut quia contemnit ligationem. — In duobus aliis casibus, credo, quod confiteri iterum eadem sit consilium, et hoc in speciali; nisi interveniat aliquis praedictorum, utpote ignorantia sacerdotis, quia non recte ligavit, vel contemptus suae ligationis; aliter non credo iterum teneri, nisi conscientia liget. Et hoc melius patebit infra¹⁸, cum agetur de confessionis dimidiatione.

p. 465

Ex his satis patent obiecta et melius patebunt infra distinctione vigesima prima¹⁹. Rationes enim, quae ostendunt, confessionem non esse iterandam, procedunt de illa confessione, qua quis est legitime confessus et absolutus, sicut patet, quia aliter non concludunt. Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt de confessione, circa quam fuit aliquis defectus, vel a parte absolventis, vel a parte absoluti, qui potest esse conditionis necessariae; et tunc oportet iterum confiteri, vel totum, vel partem, secundum qualitatem defectus. Si vero sit defectus conditionis expedientis et congruae; tunc iteratio est de congruitate, non de necessitate, ut quando intervenit oblivio, vel etiam recidivatio. Et sic patet illud totum.

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: If, however, a priest be lacking, confession is to be made to a neighbor or a companion. For it seems to be said badly, because a layman or a companion cannot absolve: therefore neither [can he] supply the place of a priest.

I respond: It is not made to a companion in order that the place of a priest be supplied, or that the confession be had as a Sacrament from this; but in order that the will of the one confessing be tested and made manifest, so that he may do all that is in him. — Yet some have said that this one is in some manner absolved in this confession. For they say¹ that the power of absolving is had in five ways, namely by authority, and thus it is God's; by excellence, and thus it is that of Christ as man; by power or authority committed, and thus it is the priest's; by the merit of life, and thus it is that of the just and holy man; and by the virtue of ecclesiastical unity, and thus it is that of any faithful man. And therefore they say that such a confession is in some manner a Sacrament of the Church. — Yet it is more probable to say that it is not a Sacrament of the Church, since the formal element² is lacking there, namely the power of the key, but it is something in place of it.

Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: Let him who confesses to a priest confess to a better one than he is able to. For according to this it seems that, if his own priest is not the best, he may desert him, which is against the canons³.

I respond: It must be said that he is speaking of a man who is in his liberty, before he commits himself to some priest, that he ought to choose the best he can. — But if it be understood after the choice; this is to be understood with the leave of his own priest, or in such a way that he first make satisfaction to his own priest, so that in no way be the authority and ministry of the priest contemned.

Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: A wise and discreet priest is to be sought; why this ought to be done. For since a simple priest sings as good a Mass as a wise one, and likewise baptizes as well: therefore it seems that he absolves as well. — It is also asked whether a simple priest sins in absolving, or even in hearing confessions. And that he does, seems [to follow] from that which he said before⁴: «Such ought he to be who judges the crimes of others». Likewise, he who undertakes to do what he does not know usurps another's [office]; and every such one sins mortally or gravely: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that, whether knowledge be a key or not⁵, nevertheless so much knowledge is necessary to a priest, that he know how to discern in common sins, both what is venial and what is mortal; and that he always know to what sins his power can extend itself; and this, because one penance is to be given for a venial [sin], another for a mortal one; and if to some kind of sin he cannot extend his hand⁶, that is necessary for him to know, otherwise he hears confessions to the peril of his own soul and of those confessing. And if the subjects know his simplicity, they are bound to consult discreet ones, otherwise both sin gravely. And of this discretion Augustine speaks⁷. — There is another discretion, by which he may know, through an acquired habit, how to discern among the perplexities of sins, and this is of well-being; but in such matters he ought always to choose the safer way and to consult the wise.

p. 464

To that which is objected concerning the Mass, it must be said that it is not similar: because there the force is in the words appointed by the Lord, but here it is required that he consult and judge according to the conscience which is in himself. As to what is asked, whether he sins; it must be said that he who lacks the necessary discretion himself sins, and [so does] he who supports him; concerning the other [discretion] I do not believe [so].

Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: Nor is it necessary that what we have once confessed to a priest we confess again.⁸ For from this text it seems that the sins which a man has once confessed he ought not to confess again, or that it is not necessary. And this seems [to follow] by reason: because in the same forum one ought not to be punished twice⁹: if therefore one has once been punished for a committed sin, it seems etc. — Likewise, it is certain that sins never return according to truth¹⁰: therefore if he has once been absolved, he is never bound again: therefore he is never bound to confess the same again. — On the contrary, let it be supposed that one confess feignedly: it is established that such a one carries off no advantage, but rather harm from the confession¹¹. If therefore nothing remains in him from the confession, because it does not imprint a character; therefore he is bound to confess again. — Likewise, let it be supposed that someone recalls a mortal sin which he forgot to confess; it is established that he has not confessed completely for the state in which he now is; but a confession which is not complete, as will be seen below¹², is to be reckoned as nothing: therefore he is bound to confess the whole again, as if he had never confessed. — Likewise, let it be supposed that someone relapses; it is established that the subsequent sin is aggravated by the preceding ones, both on account of ingratitude and on account of habit¹³: therefore the quantity of the sin and the quality of the one confessing cannot be known unless the whole is known: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that if the confession was made legitimately, and the things which pertain to it were observed; it is not necessary to confess again the things we have confessed elsewhere. But because it happens that a confession was either invalid when first made, or is afterward made invalid; therefore it is sometimes necessary to repeat [it].

Now there are four common and customary cases in which the doctors have said that confession is to be repeated. The first is on account of the enormity of the crime, on account of which the sinner must be remitted to a superior, who ought to hear and absolve the confession of the one remitted, unless he prefer to commit [it] to another. — The second is on account of the ignorance of the priest, as when the priest is unlearned; for then a priest is to be sought who knows how to bind and to loose, and to him it must be confessed again, either by leave of one's own priest, or by the authority of a superior¹⁴. — The third case is on account of the malice of feigning, as if he knowingly retained some sin in his heart, or if he approached with the will of sinning. — The fourth is on account of the contempt of satisfaction, as when he neglects and contemns to do the penance enjoined on him. And let these last two cases be understood [of the situation] when he changes priest. For if he returns to the same one, then a distinction must be made: because either he confessed recently, or [the sins] have already slipped from the memory of that priest on account of the length of time. In the first case he is not bound, in the second he is bound. — In these cases all commonly agree that confession is to be repeated.

There are also two other cases¹⁵ in which the doctors are at variance with one another. For some say that a man is bound also to repeat his confession on account of the recollection of a forgotten sin, and on account of relapse, because otherwise the confession is not complete; and the confession must have completeness in order that it have usefulness, as will better appear below¹⁶. — Others say that it suffices to say in general that one has sinned at other times and has committed this sin anew, or has recalled [it] in particular, because the prior confession was valid and good. — Others say that he is bound to relate sins of the same kind in particular, but others in general; and thus both the habit and the ingratitude are known. — But what is to be held about these things will better appear in the twenty-first distinction¹⁷; for the present it suffices to have said only this much.

But if therefore you wish precisely to know what is necessary in the repetition of confession; it must be said that it is either on account of a defect on the part of the priest; and this is only in two ways: either because he knows not how to absolve, or because he is unable; and thus there are two. — Or on account of a defect on the part of the penitent, and this in two ways: either because he contemns the priest's absolution, or because he contemns the binding. — In the two other cases, I believe that to confess the same again is a counsel, and this in particular; unless one of the aforesaid intervene, such as the ignorance of the priest, because he did not bind rightly, or the contempt of his binding; otherwise I do not believe one is bound again, unless conscience binds. And this will better appear below¹⁸, when treatment is made of the halving of confession.

p. 465

From these things the objections are sufficiently plain, and will better appear below in the twenty-first distinction¹⁹. For the reasons which show that confession is not to be repeated proceed concerning that confession by which one has been legitimately confessed and absolved, as is plain, because otherwise they do not conclude. But the reasons to the opposite proceed concerning a confession about which there was some defect, either on the part of the one absolving, or on the part of the one absolved, which can be of a necessary condition; and then it is necessary to confess again, either the whole, or a part, according to the quality of the defect. But if there be a defect of an expedient and congruous condition; then the repetition is of congruity, not of necessity, as when forgetfulness, or even relapse, intervenes. And so all that is plain.

Apparatus Criticus

1
B. Albert., hic a. 58, addit: patres nostri in scientia ista. — Cfr. infra d. 18. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. — Pro absolvitur cod. I absolvit, cod. K solvit.
Blessed Albert, here a. 58, adds: our fathers in that knowledge. — Cf. below, d. 18, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1, in the body. — For absolvitur cod. I [reads] absolvit, cod. K solvit.
2
Codd. FG cum non sit. — Cfr. de hoc dubio supra a. 1. q. 1, ubi in scholio alii auctores de hac re tractantes allegati sunt.
Codd. FG [read] cum non sit. — Cf. concerning this doubt above, a. 1, q. 1, where in the scholion other authors treating of this matter are cited.
3
Vide supra a. 1. q. 2, ubi etiam seq. solutio insinuatur.
See above, a. 1, q. 2, where the following solution is also intimated.
4
Hic in lit. c. 4. — Codd. FG dixit.
Here in the text, c. 4. — Codd. FG [read] dixit.
5
De quo infra d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. 1.
Concerning which, below, d. 18, p. I, a. 3, q. 1.
6
Cod. U vel etiam.
Cod. U [reads] vel etiam.
7
In textu huius dubii. — Aliquanto superius post manum cod. R addit suam.
In the text of this doubt. — A little above, after manum, cod. R adds suam.
8
Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 60; S. Thom., hic circa lit.
The same doubt is solved by Blessed Albert, here a. 60; St. Thomas, here in connection with the text.
9
Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1.
Cf. above the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 1.
10
Ut ostenditur infra d. 22. a. I. q. 1.
As is shown below, d. 22, a. I, q. 1.
11
Cfr. supra pag. 103, nota 14.
Cf. above, p. 103, note 14.
12
Dist. 21. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. et dub. 3.
Dist. 21, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, and dub. 3.
13
Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 2.
See above the text of the Master, d. XVI, c. 2.
14
Cfr. supra a. I. q. 2.
Cf. above, a. I, q. 2.
15
Edd. supplent iterare.
The editions supply iterare [to repeat].
16
Dist. 21. p. II. a. I. q. I. et dub. 3.
Dist. 21, p. II, a. I, q. I, and dub. 3.
17
Partis II. a. I. q. I. — Superius pro et sic scitur et cod. E et sic scitur esse (codd. RSTUX est, cod. Z Ecclesiae), edd. et sic satis est, omisso subinde et ingratitudo.
[Dist. 21,] Part II, a. I, q. I. — Above, for et sic scitur et cod. E [reads] et sic scitur esse (codd. RSTUX est, cod. Z Ecclesiae), the editions et sic satis est, with et ingratitudo thereupon omitted.
18
Dist. 21. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro dimidiatione cod. H diminutione, edd. denudatione. Paulo ante pro iterum teneri, quod habent codd. HK (1 a secunda manu), codd. FG necessarium iterum confiteri, cod. O iterum confitendum, cod. U iterandum, alii codd. incongrue tantum iterum, quod edd. mutarunt in verum.
Dist. 21, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — For dimidiatione cod. H [reads] diminutione, the editions denudatione. A little before, for iterum teneri, which codd. HK (1 by a second hand) have, codd. FG [read] necessarium iterum confiteri, cod. O iterum confitendum, cod. U iterandum, other codd. incongruously only iterum, which the editions changed into verum.
19
Partis II. a. I. q. I. — Ibid. etiam in scholio alii auctores, qui de hac re agunt, allegantur.
[Dist. 21,] Part II, a. I, q. I. — There too, in the scholion, other authors who treat of this matter are cited.