Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 22
Articulus I. De reditu peccati.
Quaestio I. Utrum peccata dimissa redeant quantum ad maculam.
Quod autem redeant quantum ad maculam, videtur.
1. Primae Petri quarto2: Caritas operit multitudinem peccatorum; sed remoto operimento, remanet et apparet illud quod cooperiebatur: si ergo peccatum sequens removet caritatem, videtur, quod peccata per ipsam dimissa facit in conspectu Dei apparere et esse.
2. Item, sicut se habet culpa ad mortificandum, ita se habet caritas ad vivificandum, et e converso; sed caritas subsequens vivificat opera sua mortificata3: ergo pari ratione culpa sequens facit redire mala prius deleta.
3. Item, peccati deletio est effectus gratiae immediatus; sed remota causa proxima et immediata, removetur effectus4: ergo remota gratia, privatur deletio culpae. Si ergo peccatum gratiam privat, per cuius actum est deletio peccati: ergo peccata priora remanent indeleta.
4. Item, ista duo sunt, quae per culpam constituuntur5, scilicet deformitas et pronitas; sed possibile est, peccata priora redire quantum ad deformitatem
et pronitatem: ergo etc. Probatio minoris: deformitas consistit in deturpatione imaginis, pronitas in inclinatione ad actum aliquem secundum excessum; sed pronitas remanet post peccatum et potest per culpam sequentem intendi, et anima deformari: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Nihil, quod omnino cedit in non-ens, iteratur omnino idem1b; sed culpa, cum deletur, omnino non est: ergo impossibile est, per sequentem actum eandem culpam numero renovari.
2. Item, nihil reducit aliquid deletum ad esse, nisi quod potest facere esse; sed unus actus non facit nisi unam maculam sive culpam in anima: ergo impossibile est, plura genera peccatorum redire per unam culpam.
3. Item, contrarium non reducit ad esse suum contrarium2b; sed possibile est, quod aliquis, qui primo peccavit per avaritiam, postmodum recidivet per prodigalitatem: si ergo prodigalitas non reducit avaritiam ad esse, patet etc.
4. Item, si peccata dimissa redeunt quantum ad culpam, aut ergo quia homo hoc facit, aut quia Deus. Homo non, quia non potest eodem peccato numero bis peccare; Deus non, quia neminem potest facere peccatorem3b: ergo nullo modo hoc est: ergo etc.
Conclusio. Dimissa peccata nullo modo redeunt quoad culpam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliquorum opinio fuit, quod priora peccata redirent et priora demerita, sicut ostensum fuit supra4b, quod redeunt priora merita et reviviscunt per gratiam subsequentem. Dicebant enim, bona et mala quantum ad mortificationem et deletionem et quantum ad reditum et vivificationem pari passu ambulare, secundum illud quod Dominus dicit Ezechielis decimo octavo5b de viro iusto, quod si se a iustitia avertit, omnium iustitiarum eius non recordabitur, et de peccatore resurgente, quod non recordatur iniquitatum. — Sed tamen illud non videtur intelligibile, quod eadem caritas amissa redeat, si est habitus creatus, nec quod eadem culpa similiter; si enim omnino deletur, non redit eadem, quae prius, sed nova.
Et ideo fuit secunda opinio magis aliquantulum temperata, quod peccata non redeant nisi per quatuor peccatorum genera, scilicet per odium fraternum, per apostasiam, per contemptum confitendi, et per hoc, quod dolet, se poenituisse. Unde fecerunt versus:
Fratres odit, apostata fit, spernitque fateri, Poenituisse piget; pristina culpa redit.
Ratio autem eorum praeter auctoritates, quae hoc dicere videntur et tanguntur in littera6b, fuit, quia Dominus remittit culpam sub quadruplici conditione, scilicet si ipse dimittat proximo, si perseveret in fide, si confiteatur culpam, si perpetuo detestetur culpam commissam. Et quoniam pactio frangitur, non existente conditione, quando aliquis peccat aliquo genere praedictorum peccatorum; dicunt, culpam redire. — Sed nec ista positio debet teneri, licet fuerit magni clerici, scilicet Praepositivi7b, quoniam non rectum habet fundamentum. Constat enim, culpam non deleri nisi per gratiam; constat etiam, ad praesentiam gratiae omnino deleri culpam. Si enim gratia praesens est; culpa omnino deleta est; quodsi deleta est et iam non est, nec est qui faciat, eam esse in anima; et ideo non videtur probabile, quod propter aliquam conditionem deficientem culpa dimissa iterum redeat.
Et ideo est positio probabilis et recta, quam tenent moderni doctores, quod peccata dimissa nullo modo redeant quoad culpam. — Et concedendae sunt rationes quoad partem istam.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur primo de remotione operimenti, dicendum, quod aliud est operiri in conspectu hominis, aliud in conspectu Dei. In conspectu hominis cooperiri potest aliquid, ita tamen, quod propter hoc non desinit; sicut pictura operitur panno, non quia non sit, sed quia non apparet. In conspectu autem Dei, quem nihil potest latere, operire est facere, quod non sit8b; et hoc modo caritas operit priora peccata delendo; et ideo, cum iam non sint, remoto operimento, non apparent.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia vivificat opera mortificata; respondetur ad hoc, quod non est
simile, tum ex parte gratiae, tum ex parte bonorum, tum ex parte divinae misericordiae. Ex parte gratiae, quoniam ipsa est potentior ad bonum, quam culpa in malum. Ex parte bonorum, quia connexio est in bonis, et manent in unitate corporis mystici; non sic est in malis. Ex parte divinae misericordiae, quae «pronior est ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum1c». Et ideo non valet. — Sed aliter potest dici, quod aliud est bona opera mortificari, aliud peccata deleri. Bona namque opera mortificantur, non quia esse desinant, sed quia reputantur indigna remuneratione aeterna propter indignitatem solam peccantis. Sed peccata deleri vere dicit peccati expulsionem et remotionem talis vitii ab anima. Unde sicut caritas, quae est habitus animae, nunquam eadem redit, si amittatur; sic nec culpa eadem redire potest.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de effectu immediato, dicendum, quod effectus habet comparari ad aliquam causam dupliciter: aut sicut ad introducentem et conservantem, ut lumen ad solem, et sic locum habet illa maxima2c; aut sicut ad introducentem solum, et sic non habet locum. Si enim cultellus infligit plagam, non oportet, quod destructo cultello, destruatur plaga. Sic in proposito est intelligendum, quod gratia in suo primo adventu facit, culpam, quam invenit in anima, amplius non esse.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de deformitate et pronitate, dicendum, quod neutra redit omnino eadem numero. Sed quamvis de pronitate aliquo modo possit esse verum; non intenditur tamen deformitas, quae est in privatione boni, et nota displicentiae eadem esse non potest; et haec est culpa, proprie loquendo, sicut planum est in secundo libro3c.
I. De duabus huius art. quaestionibus plura habet Gratianus (de Poenitent. d. 4.), et post eum illa aetate serio in utramque partem disputatum est. Guliel. Parisiens. (de Sacram. poenitent. c. 19.) diffuse probare nititur, peccata dimissa redire recidivo, non quidem quoad culpam, sed quoad poenam, sive propter legem iustitiae, sive propter ingratitudinem; denique sic concludit: «Summa omnium est, poenas peccatorum iam dimissorum redire ex integro de iure et iustitia, vel potius recidivantes peccatores redire et recidere in ipsas, quantum est de iure et iustitia meritorum ipsorum. Fines autem misericordiae Dei vel limites non hic et alibi praescribimus, sed immensitatem eius semper et veneramur et praedicamus». De hoc Gulielmi loco dicit Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 1.): «Diligenti legenti formidinem incutit grandem; aliarum etiam opinionum solvit obiecta... hocque ad minus convincit, quod peccata vehementer, immo ineffabiliter aggravantur per recidivationem frequentem». — Sed Guliel. Antissiod. (S. p. IV. tr. 6. q. 7. c. 6.), S. Thom. aliique posteriores consentiunt sententiae nostri auctoris quoad utramque quaestionem. (Cfr. etiam supra d. 14. p. II. a. 2. et 1. et hic dub. 3.).
De utraque quaestione: Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1-4. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., loc. cit.
---
Article I. On the return of sin.
Question I. Whether forgiven sins return as to their stain.
That they do return as to the stain, is [thus] shown.
1. First of Peter, chapter four2: Charity covers a multitude of sins; but when the covering is removed, that which was being covered remains and appears: if therefore a subsequent sin removes charity, it seems that it makes the sins forgiven through it appear and be in the sight of God.
2. Likewise, as fault is disposed toward mortifying, so charity is disposed toward vivifying, and conversely; but subsequent charity vivifies its own mortified works3: therefore by parallel reasoning a subsequent fault makes the evils previously blotted out return.
3. Likewise, the blotting-out of sin is an immediate effect of grace; but when the proximate and immediate cause is removed, the effect is removed4: therefore, grace being removed, the blotting-out of the fault is taken away. If therefore sin deprives [of] the grace by whose act the blotting-out of sin comes about: therefore the prior sins remain unblotted-out.
4. Likewise, there are these two things which are constituted through fault5, namely deformity and proneness; but it is possible for the prior sins to return as to deformity
and proneness: therefore etc. Proof of the minor: deformity consists in the disfigurement of the image, proneness in an inclination toward some act by way of excess; but proneness remains after the sin and can be intensified through a subsequent fault, and the soul deformed: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. Nothing which passes wholly into non-being is repeated wholly the same1b; but fault, when it is blotted out, wholly is not: therefore it is impossible for the same fault to be renewed numerically through a subsequent act.
2. Likewise, nothing brings back something blotted out to being, except that which can make [it] be; but one act makes only one stain or fault in the soul: therefore it is impossible for several kinds of sins to return through one fault.
3. Likewise, a contrary does not bring back its contrary to being2b; but it is possible that someone who first sinned through avarice afterward relapses through prodigality: if therefore prodigality does not bring avarice back to being, it is clear etc.
4. Likewise, if forgiven sins return as to fault, then either [it is] because man does this, or because God. Not man, because he cannot sin twice with numerically the same sin; not God, because he can make no one a sinner3b: therefore in no way is this [so]: therefore etc.
Conclusion. Forgiven sins in no way return as to fault.
I respond: It must be said that the opinion of some was that the prior sins would return, and the prior demerits, just as it was shown above4b that the prior merits return and revive through subsequent grace. For they said that goods and evils walk with equal step as to mortification and blotting-out and as to return and vivification, according to that which the Lord says in Ezekiel eighteen5b concerning the just man, that if he turns himself away from justice, none of his [acts of] justice will be remembered, and concerning the sinner rising again, that his iniquities are not remembered. — But nevertheless that does not seem intelligible, that the same charity, once lost, should return, if it is a created habit, nor that the same fault likewise; for if it is wholly blotted out, there returns not the same [fault] as before, but a new one.
And therefore there was a second opinion, somewhat more tempered, that sins do not return except through four kinds of sins, namely through fraternal hatred, through apostasy, through contempt of confessing, and through this, that one is grieved to have repented. Whence they made verses:
He hates [his] brothers, becomes an apostate, and scorns to confess, He is loath to have repented; the former fault returns.
But their reason, besides the authorities which seem to say this and are touched upon in the [Master's] text6b, was this: that the Lord remits fault under a fourfold condition, namely if he himself forgive his neighbor, if he persevere in faith, if he confess the fault, if he perpetually detest the committed fault. And since the pact is broken when the condition does not exist, when someone sins by any kind of the aforesaid sins; they say the fault returns. — But neither ought this position to be held, although it was [that] of a great cleric, namely of Praepositivus7b, since it does not have a right foundation. For it is agreed that fault is not blotted out except through grace; it is agreed also that at the presence of grace the fault is wholly blotted out. For if grace is present, the fault is wholly blotted out; and if it is blotted out and now is not, there is none who could make it be in the soul; and therefore it does not seem probable that, on account of some failing condition, a forgiven fault should return again.
And therefore that is a probable and correct position, which the modern doctors hold, that forgiven sins in no way return as to fault. — And the arguments are to be granted as regards this part.
1. To that which is objected, first, concerning the removal of the covering, it must be said that it is one thing to be covered in the sight of man, another in the sight of God. In the sight of man something can be covered, yet in such a way that on account of this it does not cease [to be]; as a picture is covered by a cloth, not because it is not, but because it does not appear. But in the sight of God, from whom nothing can be hidden, to cover is to make that it not be8b; and in this way charity covers the prior sins by blotting them out; and therefore, since they now are not, once the covering is removed, they do not appear.
2. To that which is objected, that grace vivifies mortified works; it is answered to this, that it is not
alike, whether on the part of grace, or on the part of goods, or on the part of divine mercy. On the part of grace, because it itself is more powerful toward good than fault [is] toward evil. On the part of goods, because there is a connection in goods, and they remain in the unity of the mystical body; it is not so in evils. On the part of divine mercy, which «is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn1c». And therefore it does not hold. — But it can be said otherwise, that it is one thing for good works to be mortified, another for sins to be blotted out. For good works are mortified, not because they cease to be, but because they are reckoned unworthy of eternal reward on account of the sinner's guilt alone. But for sins to be blotted out truly means the expulsion of sin and the removal of such a vice from the soul. Whence just as charity, which is a habit of the soul, never returns the same, if it is lost; so neither can the same fault return.
3. To that which is objected concerning the immediate effect, it must be said that an effect can be compared to a cause in two ways: either as to [something] introducing and conserving, as light to the sun, and thus that maxim2c holds place; or as to [something] introducing only, and thus it does not hold place. For if a knife inflicts a wound, it is not necessary that, the knife being destroyed, the wound be destroyed. Thus in the matter at hand it must be understood that grace, at its first coming, makes the fault, which it finds in the soul, be no more.
4. To that which is objected concerning deformity and proneness, it must be said that neither returns numerically wholly the same. But although concerning proneness it can in some way be true; nevertheless deformity is not intended [here], which is in the privation of good, and the mark of displeasure cannot be the same; and this is fault, properly speaking, as is plain in the second book3c.
I. Concerning the two questions of this article Gratian has much (On Penance d. 4), and after him, in that age, it was seriously disputed on both sides. William of Paris (On the Sacrament of Penance c. 19) strives at length to prove that forgiven sins return by relapse, not indeed as to fault, but as to penalty, whether on account of the law of justice, or on account of ingratitude; finally he concludes thus: «The sum of all is that the penalties of sins already forgiven return in full by right and justice, or rather that relapsing sinners return and relapse into them, as far as concerns the right and justice of their own merits. But the ends or limits of God's mercy we do not here and elsewhere prescribe, but we always both venerate and proclaim its immensity». Concerning this passage of William, Dionysius the Carthusian says (here q. 1): «To the diligent reader it strikes great dread; it also solves the objections of the other opinions... and it convinces at least of this, that sins are gravely, indeed unspeakably, aggravated by frequent relapse». — But William of Auxerre (S. p. IV. tr. 6. q. 7. c. 6.), St. Thomas, and other later [authors] agree with the opinion of our author as to both questions. (Cf. also above d. 14. p. II. a. 2. and 1. and here dub. 3.).
On both questions: Scotus, in both Writings, here the single question. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Blessed Albert, here a. 1-4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1-4. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, in the place cited.
---
- 2Vers. 8.Verse 8.
- 3Cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — Post opera sua (codd. F U Z omittunt sua, pro quo codd. E M W aa bona) edd. addunt prius.Cf. above d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — After opera sua (codices F U Z omit sua, for which codices E M W aa [read] bona) the editions add prius.
- 4Vide supra pag. 493, nota 6.See above p. 493, note 6.
- 5Ita codd. K M R S T, in aliis et edd. minus bene quae culpam constituunt.So codices K M R S T; in the others and the editions, less well, quae culpam constituunt [which constitute the fault].
- 1bVide supra pag. 339, nota 1. — Avicenna, Metaph. tr. 3. c. 4: Quod annihilatum est non reducitur.See above p. 339, note 1. — Avicenna, Metaphysics tr. 3. c. 4: That which is annihilated is not brought back.
- 2bAristot., VIII. Phys. text. 64. (c. 8.): Contraria mutuo se corrumpunt et impediunt.Aristotle, VIII Physics, text 64 (c. 8): Contraries mutually corrupt and impede one another.
- 3bCfr. II. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 1.Cf. II Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 1.
- 4bDist. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. Cfr. etiam d. 15. p. I. q. 4.Distinction 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. Cf. also d. 15. p. I. q. 4.
- 5bVers. 24, ubi de iusto a iustitia se avertente, et v. 22, ubi de peccatore resurgente.Verse 24, where [it speaks] of the just man turning himself away from justice, and v. 22, where [it speaks] of the sinner rising again.
- 6bHic c. 1. Vide etiam Gratian., de Poenitentia d. 4.Here c. 1. See also Gratian, On Penance d. 4.
- 7bSum. p. II. quaest., quae sic inscribitur: Nunc de reditu peccatorum quaeritur, scilicet an peccata redeant, ubi ait: Quidam dicunt, quod peccata non redeunt, sed dicuntur redire; quia quaedam ingratitudo inest isti, quae aequipollet omnibus istis peccatis... Nobis autem videtur generaliter verum, quod peccata non redeunt; sunt tamen casus, in quibus redeunt, scilicet fraterno odio, de quo habemus exemplum in servo nequam [Matth. 18, 32. seqq.], pro apostasia, ut in Iuda; pro eo quod quis non vult confiteri post contritionem, vel satisfacere post confessionem; et qui agit poenitentiam poenitentiae [a secunda manu additur de quo], ut dicit Ambrosius: Hoc maxime cavendum est, ne quis agat poenitentiam poenitentiae [II. de Poenitentia, c. 9. n. 86: Sed eos qui poenitentiam agunt, hoc solum poenitere non debet, ne ipsius poenitentiae agant poenitentiam]. Auctoritates ergo illae, quae dicunt, peccata non redire, ad generalitatem referendae sunt; quae dicunt, redire, ad casus exceptos.Summa, p. II, a question inscribed thus: Now it is asked concerning the return of sins, namely whether sins return, where he says: Some say that sins do not return, but are said to return; because a certain ingratitude is present in this [man], which is equivalent to all these sins... But to us it seems generally true that sins do not return; there are, however, cases in which they do return, namely by fraternal hatred, of which we have an example in the wicked servant [Matt. 18:32 ff.], for apostasy, as in Judas; for the fact that someone is unwilling to confess after contrition, or to make satisfaction after confession; and he who does penance for [his] penance [by a second hand is added de quo], as Ambrose says: This must be most avoided, that anyone do penance for [his] penance [II On Penance, c. 9. n. 86: But those who do penance, of this alone they ought not to repent, lest they do penance for their very penance]. Therefore those authorities which say that sins do not return are to be referred to the general [rule]; those which say they return, to the excepted cases.
- 8bCfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 4, verba August. in Ps. 31, 1: Beati... quorum tecta sunt peccata.Cf. above the Master's text, d. XVIII. c. 4, the words of Augustine on Ps. 31, 1: Blessed... whose sins are covered.
- 1cVide supra pag. 333, nota 3. — De secunda ratione cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. in corp. [ubi etiam ... insinuatur], et III. Sent. d. 36. q. 1. seqq.; de prima cfr. Rom. 5, [...] d. 13. seqq., et tom. II. pag. 920, nota 4.See above p. 333, note 3. — On the second reason cf. above d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. in the body [where also ... it is intimated], and III Sent. d. 36. q. 1. seqq.; on the first cf. Rom. 5, [...] d. 13. seqq., and tom. II. p. 920, note 4.
- 2cScil. remota causa proxima et immediata, removetur effectus. Cfr. supra d. 21. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 6.Namely, when the proximate and immediate cause is removed, the effect is removed. Cf. above d. 21. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 6.
- 3cDist. 32. a. 1. q. 1; d. 33. a. 2. q. 1; d. 34. a. 2. q. 3; et d. 35. per totam. — Codd. N aa addunt per essentiam.Distinction 32. a. 1. q. 1; d. 33. a. 2. q. 1; d. 34. a. 2. q. 3; and d. 35. throughout. — Codices N aa add per essentiam [by essence].