Dist. 21, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 21
Quaestio II. Utrum peccata venialia possint deleri a gratia sine contritione sive interiore poena.
Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum venialia possint deleri a gratia sine contritione sive interiori poena. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Per illud, quod habetur in littera1, quod est verbum Gregorii: «Quod est gutta aquae ad caminum ignis, hoc est veniale ad fervorem caritatis»: ergo videtur, quod in solo caritatis fervore possit deleri veniale.
2. Item, sicut colligitur ex verbis Augustini in libro Confessionum2, veniale non est aliud quam minor amor Dei: ergo quod excludit remissionem amoris excludit veniale et delet; sed caritas, nulla facta meditatione, potest magis et magis inflammari: ergo etc.
3. Item, possibile est, iustum, qui habet venialia, mori dormiendo, vel ita quod cadat in furiam: ergo cum ultra non sit locus poenitentiae, et necesse sit, illa venialia deleri, quia aliquando, cum habeat gratiam, perveniet ad gloriam: ergo possunt venialia deleri per gratiam sine poenitentia.
4. Item, mortale improportionaliter plus offendit Deum quam veniale; sed minima contritio sufficit ad delendum mortale cum gratia3: ergo ad delendum veniale sufficit sola gratia.
5. Item, venialia delentur virtute Sacramenti extremae unctionis, virtute etiam eucharistiae — sicut supra4 habitum est, et expresse dicit Ambrosius — et per orationem dominicalem et benedictionem episcopalem, sicut dicunt magistri communiter: ergo non est necessarium conteri, quia alia est via deletionis. — Cum ergo per haec remittantur et etiam per contritionem et exteriorem satisfactionem et per baptismum; quaeritur, per quam naturam communem insit his haec passio communis.
Contra: 1. Supra distinctione decima sexta5 habetur, ubi agitur de remissione venialium sive de poenitentia — dicit Magister — quod «ad remissionem venialium sufficit oratio dominica cum aliquo ieiunio et eleemosynis; sic tamen, ut praecedat contritio aliquantula»: ergo non potest pro illa culpa fieri satisfactio congrua, nisi praecedat interior poenitentia: ergo etc.
2. Item, maioris adhaerentiae est veniale quam mortale; sed mortale nunquam deletur, nisi liberum arbitrium ab eo dissentiat per actum contritionis: ergo multo fortius videtur de veniali.
3. Item, quando aliquae duae formae sese compatiuntur, una per se non expellit aliam; sed veniale simul stat cum gratia: ergo gratia per se non delet veniale: ergo necesse est, aliquid addi ultra, quod cum veniali peccato oppositionem habeat. Sed hoc non est nisi poenitentia interior: ergo etc.
4. Item, ratio, quare mortale non potest deleri sine actu detestationis, est, quoniam voluntate actum est et voluntate acceptante6, et ideo non potest deleri nisi voluntate detestante; sed peccata venialia ut in pluribus voluntarie committuntur et durant in nobis, quamdiu voluntas vult in talibus versari: ergo videtur, quod venialia non possunt deleri sine contritione interna.
5. Item, possibile est, unum veniale deleri sine alio; sed hoc non est nisi per aliquid, quod magis aspicit unum veniale quam aliud, ratione cuius gratiae effectus potius est supra unum quam supra aliud; sed tale non est gratia nec Sacramentum, sed solus actus interior liberi arbitrii: ergo etc.
Conclusio. Quamvis venialia peccata valde congrue per poenitentiam deleantur, tamen possunt deleri per gratiam aliter adiutam, scilicet solo libero arbitrio consonante, et aliquo exterius adiuvante.
Respondeo: Ad hoc voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod peccata venialia, quia quodam modo sunt voluntaria, sine actu voluntatis detestantis illa deleri non possunt. Quia tamen longe minus habent de ratione voluntarii quam mortalia, ideo quantulacumque contritio sufficit sive in generali, sive in speciali. Unde dixerunt, quod si quis cum impoenitentia de venialibus decedat, mortaliter peccat; si quis vero praeter usum liberi arbitrii decedat, postmodum delentur per gratiam cum detestatione voluntaria. Nam anima, quae est in gratia, statim dum in se conspicit culpam, illam detestatur, et gratia existens in anima eam delet. — Sed tamen illud difficile est sustinere tam in hoc saeculo quam in futuro: in hoc, inquam, saeculo, quoniam multi sunt modi remittendi peccata venialia praeter poenitentiam7, ut puta, cum aliquis devote suscipit episcopalem benedictionem et aquae benedictae aspersionem8 et consimilia; in futuro, quia, cum nullus sit usus liberi arbitrii meritorius post mortem, in nullo videtur possibile, quod gratia culpam deleat, cooperante motu voluntatis animae iam exutae. Et sic modus iste dicendi non videtur omnino conveniens.
Propter hoc igitur aliter dici oportet. Et ut intelligamus modum deletionis venialium, notandum, quod triplex est genus peccati, scilicet originale, actuale mortale et veniale. Et primum quidem minimam habet rationem voluntarii, immo nullam habet rationem voluntarii in nobis. Alterum autem genus peccati, scilicet mortale, simpliciter tenet rationem voluntarii, licet non ita, sicut peccatum Adae, quod nullum habuit inclinativum. Veniale peccatum quodam modo tenet medium. Unde quodam modo habet rationem poenae, quodam modo culpae; et rursus quodam modo est voluntarium, quodam modo involuntarium. Habemus enim necessitatem committendi aliquod veniale in communi, quamvis ad nullum in particulari9.
Primum igitur peccatum, quoniam aliunde contractum est, potest deleri, libero arbitrio nihil omnino agente, sed Sacramento solo exterius adiuvante, sicut patet in parvulis. — Secundum genus peccati, quoniam voluntarie contractum est, non potest deleri, nisi libero arbitrio consonante et adiuvante; ideo in iustificatione impii requiritur motus liberi arbitrii, per quem consonet gratiae, et ulterius contritio, per quam adiuvat10. — Veniale peccatum potest deleri, libero arbitrio consonante et aliquo exterius adiuvante; unde si liberum arbitrium gratiae non repugnat, volendo persistere in culpa, et gratia virtute Sacramenti, vel rei sacramentalis vigoratur; culpam venialem delet vel universaliter, vel particulariter. Unde credendum est, quod aliquo nihil de peccatis suis cogitante, sed tantum passionem Christi recolente in Sacramento eucharistiae, recogitante, inquam, ferventer, quod venialia peccata vel omnia, vel quaedam remittuntur ei per gratiam sic adiutam. Et omnia illa, sive sacramenta, sive sacramentalia, ut eucharistia et unctio et baptismus et aquae aspersio et episcopalis benedictio et contritio et misericordiae exhibitio et orationis dominicae devota exoratio, faciunt ad venialium deletionem, non per propriam naturam, sed per eam naturam, qua gratiam gratum facientem ad hunc actum adiuvant et vigorant.
Si quaeras: quomodo adiuvant? dicendum, quod in talibus ut plurimum est humiliatio et devotio, quae est actus gratia informatus, repugnans ipsi veniali peccato, quod fervorem caritatis et devotionem, quantum est ex se, diminuit. Vel ea ratione, qua est in eis poenalitas, quae repugnat inordinatae delectationi, prout11 illa poena iuncta est ordini gratiae. — Et sic potest responderi, quod quamvis venialia valde congrue per poenitentiam deleantur, possunt tamen per gratiam aliter adiutam deleri. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod praecedere debet aliquantula contritio; dicendum, quod Magister non determinat praecise modum delendi veniale peccatum, sed modum perfecte satisfaciendi. Nemo autem perfecte satisfacit pro culpa, nisi etiam interius in corde doleat, quantumcumque non se exterius punit; et hoc dico vel in generali, vel in speciali. Venialia autem non solum per vim poenitentiae, sed etiam aliis modis deleri possunt, ut tactum est.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod veniale est maioris adhaerentiae; dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de adhaerentia venialis: aut quantum ad maculam, aut quantum ad pronitatem, quae est via ad illam. Si loquamur quantum ad notam displicentiae, plus adhaeret mortale quam veniale12. Si autem quantum ad pronitatem, e contrario est; deletio autem non est respectu pronitatis, sed potius respectu maculae peccati.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod veniale se compatitur cum gratia etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, quod se compatitur quantum ad inhaerentiam; et ideo gratia non delet per sui essentiam vel inhaerentiam; et propter hoc oportet ei addi aliquod adiutorium vel liberi arbitrii13, vel alicuius alterius poenalitatis, vel Sacramenti, ratione cuius effectus vel actus gratiae repugnat veniali. Quamvis enim gratia secundum essentiam stet cum veniali, tamen caritas ad fervorem excitata consumit culpam, sicut fornax ignis modicam aquae guttam.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod veniale est voluntarium; dicendum, quod non sic, sicut mortale; tamen, quia aliquo modo voluntarium est, nunquam deletur, nisi voluntas consonet14. Unde vix contingit, quod ei qui proponit manere in veniali peccato, utpote in verbis otiosis, quod etiam si confiteatur, remittatur ei culpa, nisi forte pro opere illo contra se ipsum insurgat, et adeo rugitus rationis fremat, quod bestiales motus sensualitatis gressum figant, ad modum leonis, quo rugiente, cetera animalia gressum figunt.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod veniale unum deletur sine alio; dicendum, quod hoc possibile est duplici modo: vel quia voluntas habitudinaliter15 adhaeret uni, et non alii; et tunc culpa remittitur, cui non inhaeret, et remanet culpa, cui voluntas adhaerebat; vel ideo, quia voluntas unum peccatum magis detestatur quam alterum. Unde gratia magis delet culpam venialem, in cuius deletione magis voluntas consonat, vel adiuvat16.
---
Question II. Whether venial sins can be destroyed by grace without contrition or interior pain.
Secondly it is asked, concerning this, whether venial sins can be destroyed by grace without contrition or interior pain. And it seems that they can:
1. By that which is had in the text1, which is a saying of Gregory: "What a drop of water is to the furnace of fire, this the venial sin is to the fervor of charity": therefore it seems that a venial sin can be destroyed by the fervor of charity alone.
2. Likewise, as is gathered from the words of Augustine in the book of the Confessions2, a venial sin is nothing other than a lesser love of God: therefore that which excludes the lessening of love excludes and destroys the venial sin; but charity, with no meditation made, can be inflamed more and more: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, it is possible that a just man who has venial sins die in his sleep, or in such a way that he falls into a frenzy: therefore, since beyond there is no place for penitence, and it is necessary that those venial sins be destroyed, because at some point, since he has grace, he will arrive at glory: therefore venial sins can be destroyed by grace without penitence.
4. Likewise, a mortal sin disproportionately offends God more than a venial one; but the least contrition suffices to destroy a mortal sin together with grace3: therefore to destroy a venial sin grace alone suffices.
5. Likewise, venial sins are destroyed by the power of the Sacrament of extreme unction, and also by the power of the eucharist — as was held above4, and as Ambrose expressly says — and through the Lord's prayer and the episcopal blessing, as the masters commonly say: therefore it is not necessary to be contrite, because there is another way of destruction. — Since, therefore, they are remitted through these and also through contrition and exterior satisfaction and through baptism; it is asked, through what common nature this common property belongs to these.
On the contrary: 1. In the sixteenth distinction above5 it is had, where the remission of venial sins or penitence is treated — the Master says — that "for the remission of venial sins the Lord's prayer suffices together with some fasting and almsgiving; yet so that some little contrition precede": therefore for that fault no fitting satisfaction can be made, unless interior penitence precede: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, a venial sin is of greater adherence than a mortal one; but a mortal sin is never destroyed, unless free choice dissent from it through an act of contrition: therefore much more strongly does it seem so of the venial sin.
3. Likewise, when any two forms are mutually compatible, one does not of itself expel the other; but a venial sin stands together with grace: therefore grace of itself does not destroy the venial sin: therefore it is necessary that something further be added which has opposition to the venial sin. But this is nothing other than interior penitence: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, the reason why a mortal sin cannot be destroyed without an act of detestation is that it was committed by the will and by the accepting will6, and therefore it cannot be destroyed except by the detesting will; but venial sins are for the most part committed voluntarily and endure in us, so long as the will wishes to be engaged in such things: therefore it seems that venial sins cannot be destroyed without internal contrition.
5. Likewise, it is possible for one venial sin to be destroyed without another; but this is only through something which regards one venial sin more than another, by reason of which the effect of grace is rather upon the one than upon the other; but such a thing is not grace nor a Sacrament, but only the interior act of free choice: therefore etc.
Conclusion. Although venial sins are very fittingly destroyed through penitence, nevertheless they can be destroyed through grace otherwise aided, namely by free choice alone consenting, and by something assisting from without.
I respond: It must be said that to this some have wished to say that venial sins, because they are in a certain way voluntary, cannot be destroyed without an act of the will detesting them. Yet because they have far less of the character of the voluntary than mortal sins, therefore however small a contrition suffices, whether in general or in particular. Whence they said that if anyone die impenitent of venial sins, he sins mortally; but if anyone die without the use of free choice, afterward they are destroyed through grace with voluntary detestation. For the soul, which is in grace, as soon as it beholds the fault in itself, detests it, and the grace existing in the soul destroys it. — Yet this is difficult to maintain both in this world and in the world to come: in this world, I say, because there are many ways of remitting venial sins besides penitence7, as for example when someone devoutly receives the episcopal blessing and the sprinkling of blessed water8 and the like; in the world to come, because, since there is no meritorious use of free choice after death, in no way does it seem possible that grace destroy the fault, with the motion of the will of the soul already stripped cooperating. And so this manner of speaking does not seem altogether fitting.
On account of this, therefore, it must be said otherwise. And that we may understand the manner of the destruction of venial sins, it must be noted that there is a threefold kind of sin, namely original, actual mortal, and venial. And the first indeed has the least character of the voluntary, nay rather it has no character of the voluntary in us. But the other kind of sin, namely mortal, simply holds the character of the voluntary, although not in the way that the sin of Adam did, which had no inclining cause. The venial sin in a certain way holds the middle. Whence in a certain way it has the character of punishment, in a certain way of fault; and again in a certain way it is voluntary, in a certain way involuntary. For we have a necessity of committing some venial sin in general, although not any one in particular9.
The first sin, therefore, since it is contracted from elsewhere, can be destroyed with free choice doing nothing at all, but with the Sacrament alone assisting from without, as is plain in little children. — The second kind of sin, since it is contracted voluntarily, cannot be destroyed except with free choice consenting and assisting; therefore in the justification of the impious a motion of free choice is required, by which it consents to grace, and further a contrition, by which it assists10. — The venial sin can be destroyed with free choice consenting and something assisting from without; whence if free choice does not resist grace by willing to persist in the fault, and grace is strengthened by the power of a Sacrament or of a sacramental, it destroys the venial fault either universally or particularly. Whence it must be believed that, when someone is thinking nothing of his sins, but only recollecting the Passion of Christ in the Sacrament of the eucharist, recollecting, I say, fervently, the venial sins, either all or some, are remitted to him through grace thus aided. And all those things — whether sacraments or sacramentals, such as the eucharist and unction and baptism and the sprinkling of water and the episcopal blessing and contrition and the showing of mercy and the devout entreaty of the Lord's prayer — contribute to the destruction of venial sins, not through their proper nature, but through that nature by which they assist and strengthen grace-making-pleasing toward this act.
If you ask: how do they assist? it must be said that in such things there is for the most part humility and devotion, which is an act informed by grace, repugnant to the venial sin itself, which diminishes, so far as is of itself, the fervor of charity and devotion. Or by that reason by which there is in them a penal quality, which is repugnant to disordered delight, insofar as11 that punishment is joined to the order of grace. — And so it can be answered that although venial sins are very fittingly destroyed through penitence, they can nevertheless be destroyed through grace otherwise aided. — And the reasons adduced for this are to be conceded.
1. To that, then, which is objected, that some little contrition ought to precede; it must be said that the Master does not determine precisely the manner of destroying the venial sin, but the manner of satisfying perfectly. But no one satisfies perfectly for a fault, unless he also grieve interiorly in his heart, however much he does not punish himself exteriorly; and this I say either in general or in particular. But venial sins can be destroyed not only by the power of penitence, but also by other ways, as has been touched on.
2. To that which is objected, that a venial sin is of greater adherence; it must be said that there are two ways of speaking of the adherence of a venial sin: either as to the stain, or as to the proneness, which is the way to it. If we speak as to the mark of displeasing, a mortal sin adheres more than a venial12. But if as to proneness, it is the contrary; but destruction is not with respect to proneness, but rather with respect to the stain of sin.
3. To that which is objected, that a venial sin is compatible with grace etc.; it must be said that it is true that it is compatible as to inherence; and therefore grace does not destroy through its essence or inherence; and on account of this it must have added to it some aid, whether of free choice13, or of some other penal quality, or of a Sacrament, by reason of which the effect or act of grace is repugnant to the venial sin. For although grace according to essence stands together with the venial sin, nevertheless charity excited to fervor consumes the fault, as the furnace of fire consumes a slight drop of water.
4. To that which is objected, that a venial sin is voluntary; it must be said that it is not so as a mortal sin is; yet, because it is in some way voluntary, it is never destroyed unless the will consents14. Whence it scarcely happens, for one who proposes to remain in venial sin, as for instance in idle words, that even if he confess, the fault be remitted to him, unless perhaps for that deed he rise up against himself, and the roaring of reason so rages that the bestial motions of sensuality fix their step, after the manner of the lion, at whose roaring the other animals fix their step.
5. To that which is objected, that one venial sin is destroyed without another; it must be said that this is possible in two ways: either because the will adheres dispositionally15 to one and not to another; and then the fault is remitted to which it does not inhere, and the fault remains to which the will adhered; or for this reason, because the will detests one sin more than another. Whence grace destroys more the venial fault in whose destruction the will more consents or assists16.
---
- 1Hic c. 5.Here c. 5.
- 2Libr. X. c. 29. n. 40. Verba vide supra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. fundam. 3. — Inferius post meditatione [sive consideratione], pro quo codd. A H medicatione, cod. F mediatione, codd. P Q addunt de veniali.Book X, c. 29, n. 40. For the words see above d. 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, fundam. 3. — Further on, after meditatione [or consideratione], for which codices A and H read medicatione, codex F mediatione; codices P and Q add de veniali.
- 3Contritio enim, ut supra d. 16. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. dicitur, nominat quid informatum gratia (cum qua coniunctum esse non potest peccatum mortale).For contrition, as is said above d. 16, p. I, a. 2, q. 2 in the body, names something informed by grace (with which a mortal sin cannot be conjoined).
- 4Dist. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — De extrema unctione idem probatur infra d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. — Sententia Ambrosii (IV. de Sacram. c. 6. n. 28.) relata est supra lit. Magistri, d. XII. c. 6, et Comment. ibid. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 3. Cfr. etiam supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 4. seqq., ubi de oratione dominica. — Mox pro et per cod. U quod per.Distinction 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — On extreme unction the same is proved below d. 23, a. 1, q. 1. — The opinion of Ambrose (On the Sacraments IV, c. 6, n. 28) was reported above in the Master's text, d. XII, c. 6, and in the Commentary there, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, fundam. 3. Cf. also above in the Master's text, d. XVI, c. 4 ff., where the Lord's prayer is treated. — Presently, for et per codex U reads quod per.
- 5Cap. 6. — Sola ed. 1 omittit dicit Magister.Chapter 6. — Edition 1 alone omits dicit Magister.
- 6Ut dictum est supra d. 17. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4.As was said above d. 17, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4.
- 7Vide supra d. 16. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. et d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 3.See above d. 16, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, and d. 17, p. I, a. 1, q. 3.
- 8Cfr. C. Aquam sale (20.), de Consecrat. d. 3, et S. Bonav. Exposit. in Luc. 18, 13.Cf. the Canon Aquam sale (20), De Consecratione d. 3, and St. Bonaventure, Exposition on Luke 18, 13.
- 9Vide II. Sent. d. 40. a. 2. q. 1. et supra d. 12. p. II. dub. 4. — Ante nullum addidimus ad ex codd.See II Sent. d. 40, a. 2, q. 1, and above d. 12, p. II, dub. 4. — Before nullum we have added ad from the codices.
- 10Edd. cum uno alteroque cod. adiuvatur. Inferius pro volendo nonnulli codd. nolendo.The editions, with one or another codex, read adiuvatur. Further on, for volendo several codices read nolendo.
- 11Permulti codd. ut pro, edd. et prout, quae etiam subinde ordinanti pro ordini.Very many codices read ut for prout, the editions et prout, which likewise thereafter read ordinanti for ordini.
- 12Cfr. supra d. 16. p. I. a. 4. q. 2. ad 3. 4.Cf. above d. 16, p. I, a. 4, q. 2, ad 3 and 4.
- 13Vat. liberum arbitrium.The Vatican edition reads liberum arbitrium.
- 14Supple: gratiae. — Edd. substituunt detestetur.Supply: gratiae. — The editions substitute detestetur.
- 15Vat. habitualiter, quae etiam inferius pro adhaerebat cum ed. 1 adhaerebit, cod. O adhaeret.The Vatican edition reads habitualiter, which likewise further on, for adhaerebat, with edition 1 reads adhaerebit; codex O, adhaeret.
- 16Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question. ---