Dist. 22, Divisio Textus
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 22
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXII.
De damno confessionis omissae.
Cumque multis auctoritatibus supra sit assertum etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
In particula praecedenti egit Magister de utilitate confessionis recte factae. In hac parte agit de damno confessionis omissae. Unde quaerit, utrum propter omissionem confessionis redeant peccata dimissa. Et habet haec pars quatuor particulas. In prima movet quaestionem. In secunda ponit unam opinionem cum sua confirmatione, ibi: Qui vero dicunt, peccata dimissa etc. In tertia solvit quae videntur facere contra praedictam rationem, ibi: Illis auctoritatibus innituntur. In quarta ponit aliam opinionem, ibi: Sed quia absonum videtur, ut peccata etc., ubi ponit aliam opinionem magis temperatam.
Post praedicta restat investigare. Haec est ultima pars huius partis, in qua agit de poenitentia, secundum quod habet rationem signi, quae fuit divisa contra totam partem1. Sunt autem in hac parte duae particulae secundum duplicem opinionem, quam ponit, quid sit in poenitentia signum, et quid signatum. Primam ponit ibi: Post praedicta restat etc. Secundam ibi: Quidam autem dicunt, exteriorem poenitentiam etc.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis tria principaliter quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur quantum ad primam partem de reditu peccati.
Secundo quaeritur de poenitentia in ratione Sacramenti, et hoc quantum ad secundam partem.
Tertio ad intelligentiam totius partis praecedentis quaeritur de poenitentia in ratione fundamenti.
Quantum ad primum quaeruntur duo.
Primo quaeritur, utrum peccata redeant quantum ad maculam.
Secundo, utrum redeant quantum ad reatum.
---
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXII.
On the harm of omitted confession.
And since it has been asserted above by many authorities, etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
In the preceding section the Master treated of the usefulness of confession rightly made. In this section he treats of the harm of omitted confession. Whence he asks whether, on account of the omission of confession, sins that have been forgiven return. And this section has four subsections. In the first he raises the question. In the second he sets down one opinion together with its confirmation, there: But those who say that forgiven sins etc. In the third he resolves the things which seem to tell against the aforesaid account, there: They rely on those authorities. In the fourth he sets down another opinion, there: But since it seems unfitting that sins etc., where he sets down another, more moderate opinion.
It remains, after the aforesaid, to investigate. This is the last part of this section, in which he treats of penance insofar as it has the character of a sign, which was divided off against the whole section1. Now there are in this part two subsections according to the twofold opinion which he sets down as to what in penance is the sign and what is the thing signified. He sets down the first there: It remains, after the aforesaid etc. The second there: But certain ones say that exterior penance etc.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the understanding of the present distinction three things principally are asked.
First it is asked, with respect to the first part, concerning the return of sin.
Secondly it is asked concerning penance in its character as a Sacrament, and this with respect to the second part.
Thirdly, for the understanding of the whole preceding part, it is asked concerning penance in its character as a foundation.
With respect to the first, two things are asked.
First it is asked whether sins return with respect to the stain.
Secondly, whether they return with respect to the guilt.
---
- 1Supra d. 17. p. I. divisio textus. Superius edd. et codd. falso minus temperatam pro magis temperatam; cfr. infra a. 1. q. 1. iudicium de 2. opinione.Above, d. 17, p. I, the division of the text. Above, the editions and codices falsely [read] minus temperatam ("less moderate") for magis temperatam ("more moderate"); cf. below, a. 1, q. 1, the judgment on the second opinion.