Dist. 20, Part 2, Divisio Textus
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 20
## Commentarius in Distinctionem XX. — Pars II.
De tempore poenitentiae in comparatione ad arbitrium sacerdotis.
Si vero quaeritur de illo qui satisfactionem iniunctam.
TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 515.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra determinavit Magister tempus poenitentiae in se. Hic secundo determinat per comparationem ad arbitrium sacerdotis. Et quoniam in poenitentia a sacerdote imposita tria est considerare, scilicet reconciliationem, et poenae impositionem sive iniunctionem, et ultra iniunctae poenae expletionem, ideo haec pars habet tres.
In prima quaerit Magister, quasi ordine resolutorio incipiens a posteriori, utrum poena iniuncta, consummata, sit poenitens absolutus simpliciter; et hoc facit ibi: Si vero quaeritur de illo etc. In secunda, quando poenitentia imponenda est, scilicet utrum in extremo mortis articulo, et hoc ibi: Solet etiam quaeri, utrum satisfactionis lex etc. In tertia quaerit, utrum3 alicui neganda sit reconciliatio, ibi: Sciendum est, quod tempore necessitatis.
Et illa pars dividitur in tres. In prima ostendit, quod non est neganda reconciliatio in articulo necessitatis. In secunda ostendit, quod praeter4 necessitatem in gravibus oportet consulere episcopum, ibi: Non debet tamen presbyter etc. In tertia ostendit, quod si poenitens voluit reconciliari et non potuit, quod habendus est pro reconciliato, et hoc ibi: Si autem quaeritur de illo qui ad poenitentiam festinans etc. — Principaliter autem praesentis partis intentio consistit, qualiter satisfactio sit iniungenda et qualiter implenda, utrum etiam5 per interpositam personam, et utrum scilicet tota.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de satisfactionis diminutione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex.
Primo quaeritur, utrum possit fieri satisfactionis commutatio.
Secundo, utrum possit vel debeat fieri relaxatio.
Tertio, dato quod sic, quaeritur, a quo potest fieri.
Quarto quaeritur, pro quo potest fieri.
Quinto, cui valeat.
Sexto et ultimo, quantum valeat.
## Commentary on Distinction XX — Part II.
On the time of penance in comparison to the judgment of the priest.
But if it is asked concerning him who [does not complete] the satisfaction enjoined.
FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 515.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above, the Master determined the time of penance in itself. Here, in the second place, he determines it in comparison to the judgment of the priest. And since in the penance imposed by a priest there are three things to consider — namely the reconciliation, and the imposition or enjoining of the penalty, and beyond that the fulfillment of the enjoined penalty — therefore this part has three [sections].
In the first the Master asks, beginning as it were in resolutory order from the latter point, whether, once the enjoined penalty is completed, the penitent is absolved simply; and he does this there: But if it is asked concerning him etc. In the second, when the penance is to be imposed, namely whether at the extreme article of death, and this there: It is also wont to be asked, whether the law of satisfaction etc. In the third he asks whether3 reconciliation is to be denied to anyone, there: It must be known that in the time of necessity.
And that part is divided into three. In the first he shows that reconciliation is not to be denied in the article of necessity. In the second he shows that beyond4 necessity, in grave [cases], one ought to consult the bishop, there: The presbyter, however, ought not etc. In the third he shows that if the penitent willed to be reconciled and could not, that he is to be held as reconciled, and this there: But if it is asked concerning him who, hastening to penance etc. — But the intention of the present part consists principally in how satisfaction is to be enjoined and how it is to be fulfilled, whether also5 through an interposed person, and whether namely the whole [of it].
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the understanding of this part, inquiry is made concerning the diminution of satisfaction. And concerning this six [questions] are asked.
First it is asked, whether a commutation of satisfaction can be made.
Second, whether a relaxation can or ought to be made.
Third, granted that it can, it is asked by whom it can be made.
Fourth it is asked, for whom it can be made.
Fifth, to whom it avails.
Sixth and last, how much it avails.
- 3In edd. additur in necessitate. Inferius pro gravibus cod. U gravioribus.In the [printed] editions there is added in necessitate ["in necessity"]. Further below, for gravibus ["grave"], codex U reads gravioribus ["graver"].
- 4Cod. aa propter.Codex aa reads propter ["on account of"].
- 5Codd. F G K scilicet.Codices F, G, K read scilicet ["namely"].