Bonaventure

Quaestio II. Utrum sacerdos possit aliquid in poenam.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum sacerdos possit aliquid supra poenam. Et quod sic, ostenditur:

1. Per Magistrum in littera in illo capitulo¹: «Ligant quoque sacerdotes, dum satisfactionem poenitentibus imponunt; solvunt autem, dum de ea aliquid remittunt»: ergo videtur, quod aliquid remittant de poena.

2. Item, nihil est in peccatore remittendum nisi vel offensa, vel poena; sed offensam remittit Deus, non sacerdos: ergo si poenam solus Deus remittit, videtur ergo, quod sacerdos² a nullo absolvit: falsum ergo dicit sacerdos, dicens: Ego te absolvo.

3. Item, sic sacerdos novae legis se habet ad sacerdotem veteris, sicut Sacramenta novae legis ad Sacramenta veteris; sed Sacramenta novae legis exhibent quod illa demonstrabant et significabant³: ergo sacerdotes novae legis dant quod illi praefigurabant. Sed illi praefigurabant in suis actibus remissionem: ergo videtur, quod isti sacerdotes eam tribuant. Sed non nisi remissionem culpae, aut poenae; sed non culpae: ergo poenae.

4. Item, qui peccavit peccato occulto et post conteritur ante absolutionem sacerdotis, non apparet ligatus nec sibi nec aliis: sibi non, quia videt, se habere bonam voluntatem; aliis non, quia non vident in eo nisi bonum: ergo videtur, quod non sit alicuius utilitatis ipsum ostendere absolutum, immo quod non ostendatur.

Contra: 1. Hieronymus⁴: «In remittendis vel in retinendis culpis id iuris habent evangelici sacerdotes, quod olim habebant sub Lege legales»; sed illi non ostendebant nisi mundatum, ita quod non mundabant a culpa nec absolvebant a poena: ergo similiter et isti.

2. Item, si remittit poenam; aut aeternam, aut temporalem. Aeternam non; istud constat, quia illa inseparabilis est a culpa, et praeterea est infinita: ergo non potest remitti nisi a virtute remittente culpam et a virtute infinita: non ergo a sacerdote. Praeterea, si Deus remitteret culpam sine poena aeterna, ergo aliquis esset sine culpa et reus mortis aeternae; sed non caret quis culpa nisi per caritatem: ergo simul haberet caritatem et reatum poenae aeternae, et ita simul esset dignus morte aeterna et gloria, quod est impossibile: non ergo remittit culpam sine poena⁵: ergo sacerdos non remittit poenam aeternam.

3. Item, non remittit poenam temporalem, quoniam ad illam ligat; et constat, quod non ligat et solvit respectu eiusdem. Si tu dicas, quod absolvit a poena purgatoria, et ligat expiatoria⁶ sive satisfactoria; contra: poena purgatoria est de alio foro: ergo ab illa non potest sacerdos absolvere.

4. Item, si quis moriatur ante perfectionem poenitentiae, punietur in purgatorio; sed non debet puniri poena, a qua est absolutus: ergo ab illa nunquam fuit absolutus.

5. Item, Dominus, dum remittit culpam, remittit poenam totam⁷ nec obligat ad poenam, nisi quantum exigit sua iustitia: ergo si aliquis remittit aliquid ulterius de illa poena, praeiudicat divinae iustitiae; sed nullus potest divinae iustitiae praeiudicare: ergo nullus de poena temporali, ad quam obligatur peccator, potest aliquid remittere.

6. Item, si posset partem remittere, aut plus remittit ei qui plus peccavit, aut plus ei qui minus. Si plus vel tantum ei qui minus, ergo videtur, quod si aliquis parum peccavit, et ita parum debetur ei de poena, quod totum relinqueret: ergo pro parvo peccato non est imponenda aliqua poena; quod est inconveniens. Si remittit minus: ergo ei qui minus dignus est, magis remittit; sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.

7. Item, si remittit partem, alius sacerdos potest remittere aliam partem, et sic deinceps, et sic totum remitti⁸; quod non competit, ut videtur, secundum forum commune.

Conclusio. Sacerdos remittit aliquam partem poenae, non aeternae nec purgatoriae, sed illius poenae, ad quam Deus obligat peccatorem post absolutionem a culpa.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod praeter positionem illam, quam Magister ponit in littera⁹, qua aliqui senserunt, quod absolvit a poena aeterna, quam etiam satis efficaciter improbat; tres sunt hic modi dicendi.

Unus modus dicendi est, quod sacerdos absolvit non a poena, sed a vinculo confessionis ligando ad poenam satisfactionis. Et ista positio videtur trahi ex verbis Hugonis¹⁰ in libro de Potestate ligandi, ubi distinguuntur septem vincula, scilicet obdurationis, servitutis, captivitatis, aeternae damnationis sive punitionis, perpetuae detestationis, confessionis et poenalis expiationis. A primis tribus absolvit Deus per gratiam et misericordiam; a vinculo obdurationis absolvit per gratiam praeparantem, quae emollit cor ad poenitentiam et est gratia gratis data; a vinculo servitutis per gratiam praevenientem, quae est gratum faciens et liberat a servitute peccati; a vinculo captivitatis per gratiam cooperantem, quae expedit hominem et solvit ad bona opera. A vinculo quarto, scilicet aeternae damnationis, solvit ligando ad quintum, scilicet ad vinculum perpetuae detestationis. A sexto vero solvit per ministrum ligando ad septimum. Sacerdos enim solvit peccatorem confitentem, ut non teneatur confiteri, sed ligat ad vinculum satisfactionis. — Sed illud non sufficit, quia sacerdos in absolvendo non dicit: Absolvo te a confessione, sed a peccatis. Ab illis ergo absolvit vel quantum ad poenam, vel quantum ad culpam: ergo plus oportet dicere.

Et ideo est secundus modus dicendi, quod sacerdos absolvit non tantum ab hoc vinculo¹¹, sed etiam a poena purgatoria, ligando ad poenam satisfactoriam; sed non solvit aliquam partem poenae relaxando, sed solum commutando, et hoc sub conditione, si explet satisfactionem iniunctam. Et si illa satisfactio sit condigna, absolvit a tota; si non, absolvit a tanta; et ideo, si peccator moriatur ante complementum satisfactionis condignae, oportet eum puniri in purgatorio. — Sed nec illud sufficit adhuc, quia iste peccator post absolutionem divinam non ligatur ad poenam purgatoriam magis quam ad aliam. — Et hoc patet, quia tantum potest conteri, quod Deus totum remittit, et statim evolabit: ergo non oportet, quod illam commutet. Et iterum, si non facit nisi commutare et ligat ad condignam, ergo nullum fructum reportat inde poenitens, et pro nihilo dicit: Ego te absolvo ab omnibus peccatis. — Quae omnia magna¹² sunt inconvenientia; sunt et alia, quae omittuntur brevitatis causa.

Et ideo est tertius modus dicendi magis consonus rationi et fidei pietati, quod sacerdos aliquam partem poenae absolvendo dimittit ex vi clavium. — Et hoc possumus intelligere sic: quia universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas¹³, ideo in iustificatione, quae est opus misericordiae, misericordia sic remittit culpam, ut iustitiae regulam non praetereat; propterea adhuc detinet obligatum ad poenam. Illa autem poena ob rigorem divinae iustitiae est viribus nostris improportionalis et nostrae cognitioni ignota; et pro illa oportet quod satisfaciat Deo. Providit adhuc igitur nobis viam misericordia divina et constituit arbitrum sacerdotem, cui dedit potestatem arbitrandi et taxandi poenam et manifestandi nobis, et partem poenae remittere ex virtute passionis Christi, ut divina iustitia pro illa parte solutionem ab isto non exigat, sed ex passionis Christi poena sit contenta. Quanta sit illa pars, nostrum non est determinare, sed Dei. Et tunc Sacramentum poenitentiae non tantum erit onerosum, sed etiam fructuosum.

Hanc igitur opinionem sustinendo concedendum est, quod sacerdos remittit aliquam partem poenae, sicut ostendunt rationes, non aeternae, sicut ostendunt aliae, non purgatoriae, sed communiter illius poenae, qua Deus obligat peccatorem post absolutionem a culpa; et pro illa nunquam punitur in purgatorio nec alibi. Sed pro alia parte, a qua non absolvitur¹⁴, vel punietur hic sufficienter, vel Dominus exiget in purgatorio.

Ad argumenta: Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Hieronymo, dicendum, quod est ostendere per solam demonstrationem, sicut ostendit ille qui digito monstrat aliquid; et est ostendere per quandam exhibitionem, ut artifex ostendit imaginem inchoatam, quando eam consummat. Dico ergo, quod Hieronymus vult dicere, quod sacerdos evangelicus quantum ad absolutionem a culpa absolvit solum ostendendo, scilicet demonstrando absolutum, absolvit autem a poena¹⁵; et hoc verum est, ut intelligatur ostendere non solum sensui manifestando, sed etiam perficiendo et exhibendo.

Ad 2, 3, 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de poena purgatoria et aeterna, dicendum, quod concedendum est, sed aliter et aliter:

quia ab aeterna nullo modo solvit; a purgatoria absolvit non per se, sed per accidens, quia, cum in poenitente virtute clavium minuitur debitum poenae temporalis, non ita acriter punitur in purgatorio, sicut si non esset absolutus.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod hoc praeiudicat divinae iustitiae; dicendum, quod falsum est. Sicut enim in baptismo per passionis Christi meritum et solutionem solvitur peccator a tota poena, ita in poenitentia per eiusdem passionis Christi virtutem solvitur a parte poenae, ita quod in nullo praeiudicatur iustitiae, immo verificatur illud Psalmi¹⁶: Misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi; misericordia enim supererogando pretium iustitiae satisfacit.

Ad 6. Ad illud quod quaeritur, si remittit partem, aut maiorem ei qui magis etc.; dicendum, quod misericordia non considerat meritum, sed miseriam; et ideo divina misericordia, quae subvenit hic miseris, non considerando in eis meritum, sed miseriam, subvenit per meritum Christi et remittit partem aequalem omnibus, non, inquam, secundum absolutam comparationem, sed proportionalem, ut si illi qui debet centum, remittit decem; et ei qui debet decem, remittit unum. Et ideo qui magis peccavit, dum poenitet, tenetur ad magnas gratiarum actiones, et hoc melius patebit, cum ostendetur, quomodo in omni opere Domini est misericordia et veritas.

Ad 7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si quilibet remittit partem, tunc videtur, quod tota aliquando remittatur; dicendum, quod primus sacerdos, cui confitetur, si paratus est, totum remittit de ipsis culpis, quod per vim clavium debet remitti; et ideo alius non remittit. Bonum est tamen alteri confiteri, tum propter instructionem, tum propter maiorem certitudinem, tum propter eius intercessionem, tum propter verecundiae meritum et arctam satisfactionem et humiliationem.

---

Question II. Whether the priest can do anything with respect to the penalty.

Secondly it is asked whether the priest can do anything with respect to the penalty. And that he can is shown:

1. Through the Master in the text, in that chapter¹: «Priests likewise bind when they impose satisfaction on penitents; but they loose when they remit something of it»: therefore it seems that they remit something of the penalty.

2. Likewise, nothing is to be remitted in the sinner except either the offense or the penalty; but God remits the offense, not the priest: therefore if God alone remits the penalty, it then seems that the priest² absolves from nothing: the priest therefore speaks falsely when he says: I absolve you.

3. Likewise, the priest of the new law stands to the priest of the old as the Sacraments of the new law stand to the Sacraments of the old; but the Sacraments of the new law exhibit what those [old ones] demonstrated and signified³: therefore the priests of the new law give what those [old ones] prefigured. But those prefigured remission in their acts: therefore it seems that these priests confer it. But [they confer] only the remission of guilt or of penalty; but not of guilt: therefore of penalty.

4. Likewise, one who has sinned with a hidden sin and afterward is contrite before the priest's absolution does not appear bound either to himself or to others: not to himself, because he sees that he has a good will; not to others, because they see nothing in him but good: therefore it seems that it is of no use to show him absolved, indeed that he should not be shown [as such].

On the contrary: 1. Jerome⁴: «In remitting or in retaining guilt the priests of the Gospel have the same right which the priests of the Law once had under the Law»; but those showed only the cleansed person, in such a way that they did not cleanse from guilt nor absolve from penalty: therefore likewise these.

2. Likewise, if he remits the penalty; either eternal or temporal. Not the eternal; that is established, because it is inseparable from guilt, and besides it is infinite: therefore it cannot be remitted except by a power remitting guilt and by an infinite power: therefore not by the priest. Moreover, if God were to remit the guilt without the eternal penalty, then someone would be without guilt and yet liable to eternal death; but no one is free of guilt except through charity: therefore he would have at once both charity and liability to eternal penalty, and thus at once would be worthy of eternal death and of glory, which is impossible: therefore he does not remit guilt without penalty⁵: therefore the priest does not remit the eternal penalty.

3. Likewise, he does not remit the temporal penalty, since to it he binds; and it is established that he does not bind and loose with respect to the same thing. If you say that he absolves from the purgatorial penalty, and binds to the expiatory⁶ or satisfactory; on the contrary: purgatorial penalty belongs to another forum: therefore from it the priest cannot absolve.

4. Likewise, if someone should die before the completion of his penance, he will be punished in purgatory; but he ought not to be punished with a penalty from which he has been absolved: therefore from it he was never absolved.

5. Likewise, the Lord, when he remits guilt, remits the whole penalty⁷ nor binds to penalty except so far as his justice requires: therefore if anyone remits anything further of that penalty, he prejudices the divine justice; but no one can prejudice the divine justice: therefore no one can remit anything of the temporal penalty to which the sinner is bound.

6. Likewise, if he could remit a part, either he remits more to him who sinned more, or more to him who sinned less. If [he remits] more or as much to him who [sinned] less, then it seems that if someone sinned little, and so little is owed to him by way of penalty, he would relinquish the whole: therefore for a small sin no penalty at all is to be imposed; which is unfitting. If he remits less [to him who sinned more]: therefore to him who is less worthy he remits more; but this is unfitting: therefore etc.

7. Likewise, if he remits a part, another priest can remit another part, and so on in turn, and thus the whole is remitted⁸; which is not fitting, as it seems, according to the common forum.

Conclusion. The priest remits some part of the penalty — not the eternal nor the purgatorial, but that penalty to which God binds the sinner after absolution from guilt.

I respond: It must be said that, apart from the position which the Master sets forth in the text⁹, by which some have held that he absolves from the eternal penalty — which he also refutes quite effectively — there are here three modes of speaking.

One mode of speaking is that the priest absolves not from the penalty, but from the bond of confession, binding to the penalty of satisfaction. And this position seems to be drawn from the words of Hugh¹⁰ in the book On the Power of Binding, where seven bonds are distinguished, namely: of obduration, of servitude, of captivity, of eternal damnation or punishment, of perpetual detestation, of confession, and of penal expiation. From the first three God absolves through grace and mercy; from the bond of obduration he absolves through preparing grace, which softens the heart to penitence and is grace freely given; from the bond of servitude through prevenient grace, which is grace making pleasing and frees from the servitude of sin; from the bond of captivity through cooperating grace, which sets a man free and looses him for good works. From the fourth bond, namely of eternal damnation, he looses by binding to the fifth, namely to the bond of perpetual detestation. From the sixth, however, he looses through his minister by binding to the seventh. For the priest looses the confessing sinner, that he be not bound to confess, but binds him to the bond of satisfaction. — But that does not suffice, because the priest in absolving does not say: I absolve you from confession, but from sins. From those, therefore, he absolves either with respect to the penalty or with respect to the guilt: therefore one must say more.

And therefore there is a second mode of speaking: that the priest absolves not only from this bond¹¹, but also from the purgatorial penalty, binding to the satisfactory penalty; but he does not loose any part of the penalty by relaxing it, but only by commuting it, and this under condition, if he fulfills the satisfaction enjoined. And if that satisfaction be condign, he absolves from the whole; if not, he absolves from so much; and therefore, if the sinner should die before the completion of condign satisfaction, he must be punished in purgatory. — But neither does that suffice as yet, because this sinner after the divine absolution is not bound to the purgatorial penalty any more than to another. — And this is clear, because he can be so contrite that God remits the whole, and he will straightway fly forth: therefore there is no need that he commute it. And again, if he does nothing but commute and binds to the condign [penalty], then the penitent reaps no fruit from it, and to no purpose does he say: I absolve you from all sins. — All of which are great¹² unfitting consequences; there are others too, which are omitted for brevity's sake.

And therefore there is a third mode of speaking, more consonant with reason and the piety of faith: that the priest by absolving remits some part of the penalty by the power of the keys. — And this we can understand thus: that since all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth¹³, therefore in justification, which is a work of mercy, mercy so remits the guilt as not to overstep the rule of justice; for this reason it still keeps [the man] obligated to the penalty. But that penalty, by reason of the rigor of the divine justice, is disproportionate to our powers and unknown to our cognition; and for it he must make satisfaction to God. The divine mercy has therefore further provided us a way and has appointed the priest as arbiter, to whom it has given the power of arbitrating and assessing the penalty and of making it known to us, and of remitting part of the penalty by virtue of Christ's passion, so that the divine justice may not exact payment for that part from him, but may be content with the penalty of Christ's passion. How great that part is, it is not for us to determine, but for God. And then the Sacrament of penance will be not only burdensome but also fruitful.

Holding therefore to this opinion, it must be conceded that the priest remits some part of the penalty, as the arguments show — not the eternal, as the others show, nor the purgatorial, but in general that penalty by which God binds the sinner after absolution from guilt; and for it he is never punished in purgatory or elsewhere. But for the other part, from which he is not absolved¹⁴, either he will be punished here sufficiently, or the Lord will exact it in purgatory.

To the arguments: To 1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Jerome, it must be said that there is a showing by mere demonstration, as he shows who points to something with the finger; and there is a showing by a certain exhibiting, as a craftsman shows a begun image when he completes it. I say therefore that Jerome means that the priest of the Gospel, with respect to absolution from guilt, absolves only by showing, namely by demonstrating [the man] absolved; but he absolves from the penalty¹⁵; and this is true, provided that showing be understood not only as manifesting to the senses, but also as perfecting and exhibiting.

To 2, 3, 4. To that which is objected concerning purgatorial and eternal penalty, it must be said that it is to be conceded, but in different respects:

because from the eternal he in no way looses; from the purgatorial he absolves not per se, but per accidens, because, when in the penitent the debt of temporal penalty is diminished by the power of the keys, he is not punished so sharply in purgatory as if he had not been absolved.

To 5. To that which is objected, that this prejudices the divine justice; it must be said that it is false. For just as in baptism, through the merit and the payment of Christ's passion, the sinner is loosed from the whole penalty, so in penance, through the virtue of the same passion of Christ, he is loosed from a part of the penalty, in such a way that justice is in no way prejudiced, but rather that of the Psalm is verified¹⁶: Mercy and truth have met each other; for mercy by overpaying satisfies the price of justice.

To 6. To that which is asked, whether he remits a part, or a greater [part] to him who [sinned] more, etc.; it must be said that mercy considers not merit but misery; and therefore the divine mercy, which here succors the wretched, considering in them not merit but misery, succors through the merit of Christ and remits an equal part to all — not, I say, according to absolute comparison, but proportional — as if to him who owes a hundred he remits ten; and to him who owes ten he remits one. And therefore he who sinned more, while he repents, is bound to great acts of thanksgiving, and this will appear better when it is shown how in every work of the Lord there is mercy and truth.

To 7. To that which is objected, that if everyone remits a part, then it seems that the whole would sometimes be remitted; it must be said that the first priest, to whom one confesses, if he is ready, remits the whole of those very sins which by the power of the keys ought to be remitted; and therefore another does not remit. It is good, nevertheless, to confess to another, both for the sake of instruction, and for the sake of greater certitude, and for the sake of his intercession, and for the sake of the merit of shame and of stricter satisfaction and humiliation.