← Back to Distinction 6

Dist. 6, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 5

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 6

Textus Latinus
p. 144

Quaestio V. Utrum character imprimatur delebiliter, vel indelebiliter.

Quinto quaeritur, utrum character imprimatur delebiliter, vel indelebiliter. Et quod indelebiliter, videtur:

1. Quia Sacramenta, in quibus imprimitur character, nullatenus iterantur1; sed si deleretur, possent et deberent iterari: ergo non deletur.

2. Item, character stat cum culpa, sicut patet in sacerdote malo, ergo non repugnat culpae; stat etiam cum ignorantia, ut in parvulo baptizato2, ergo videtur, quod non habeat contrarium, per quod deleatur; et est in subiecto perpetuo: ergo eius impressio est indelebilis.

Contra: 1. Possibile est, aliquem baptizatum habere characterem bestiae, de quo habetur Apocalypsis decimo quarto3; sed nullus simul potest placere Deo et diabolo: ergo nullus simul potest habere signum huius et illius: ergo unus character potest alterum delere et destruere.

2. Item, character bestiae est delebilis, quia nullus est adeo malus, quin possit fieri bonus4: ergo a simili character Christi, cum ille qui bonus est, possit malus fieri.

3. Item, si character est indelebilis, quaero, unde illud habeat. Si ab efficiente; sed gratia gratum faciens est a Deo, et tamen delebilis. Si a subiecto: ergo quidquid est in anima, est indelebile. Praeterea, quod magis sit delebilis ratione subiecti, videtur: quia voluntarie recipitur; sed quod subiacet voluntati est variabile5: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod post hanc vitam deleatur, videtur in Beatis: quia est ex parte6, multo enim magis est imperfectum lumen quam fides: ergo si fides excidit, et character.

5. Item, quod in damnatis deleatur, videtur: quia character aliquo modo habilitat ad gratiam7; sed tunc erunt ipsi omnino inhabiles: ergo carebunt charactere.

p. 145

Conclusio.

Conclusio. Character est signum indelebile, quia est habitus in subiecto perpetuo impressus ad distinguendum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod communis opinio est, quod character est proprietas indelebilis. Sed in huius indelebilitatis causa differenter sentiunt diversi.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod quia character est in anima secundum substantiam vel essentiam, et ipsa est perpetua et invariabilis; ideo et character. — Sed istud supra8 improbatum est.

Alii dicunt, quod quia est in anima secundum potentiam cognitivam, quae non subiacet variabilitati, ut voluntas — quaedam enim cognoscimus, etiam voluntate nolente — ideo invariabilis. — Sed hoc non valet, quia per ignorantiam expelluntur habitus cognitivi9, sed non character.

Tertii dicunt, quod sicut ex matrimonii obligatione contrahitur vinculum insolubile, quamdiu vivitur, ita ex consimili in susceptione Sacramenti: scilicet quia ibi est quoddam matrimonium spirituale; et quoniam tam Deus quam anima sunt perpetuam durationem habentia; ideo character semper durat. — Sed quamvis istud possit dici de baptismo, ubi est quaedam contractio matrimonii10, non tamen in aliis Sacramentis.

Et propterea dicendum aliter, quod perpetuitas characteris principaliter sumitur ab eius conditione et natura. — Unde notandum quod est habitus innatus, et hic est indelebilis omnino; et est habitus acquisitus, et hic, quia est ex acquisitione, perdi potest; et est habitus infusus vel datus; et hic est duplex. Quidam est datus ad dirigendum, et quia potentiae possunt obliquari, ideo est delebilis — potest enim invenire repugnantiam in subiecto — et alius impressus ad distinguendum, et huic directio11 vel obliquatio potentiae non repugnat. Si enim aliquid repugnaret, hoc solum esset opposita consignatio; sed opposita non potest esse, quia solus Deus potest imaginem suam consignare: ideo, si debet opposito signo signari, a solo Deo fiet. Sed ipse nunquam imprimit signum sibi contrarium; ideo necesse est, quod character aeternaliter perseveret. Quoniam igitur character proprietas est existens in subiecto perpetuo, in quo non potest habere repugnantiam; ideo eius impressio est perpetua.

Ad obiecta: Ad 1, 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de charactere bestiae, dicendum, quod character bestiae non dicitur aliquod signaculum quod diabolus animae impresserit, sed culpa secundum eius voluntatem perpetrata, in qua est anima per obstinationem disposita ad perpetuitatem; et ideo non est omnino simile12.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod quaeritur, unde hoc habeat; dicendum, quod a sui conditione, subiecto concordante, non repugnante; et efficiente non producente contrarium nec subtrahente13.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de damnatis, dicendum, quod in damnatis manet ad confusionem, in Beatis ad quantulumcumque decorem.

Ad 4. Quod obiicitur, quod est ex parte; dicendum, quod imperfectio characteris compatitur secum perfectionem gloriae14; non sic autem est de imperfectione fidei, quia fides, secundum quod est virtus, dicit aenigma et absentiam rei creditae, et hoc repugnat statui gloriae; et ideo evacuatur, non secundum quod lumen tantum, sed secundum quod habet annexum aenigma et absentiam rei in se, quod est essentiale fidei, secundum quod virtus; alioquin, si videret certitudinaliter, non esset meritum15. Non autem est simile de charactere, quoniam dicit quandam consignationem et lumen quoddam; et illud non habet oppositionem ad lumen perfectum nec habet oppositionem ad tenebram poenae propter lucis modicitatem: ideo nec ibi evacuatur nec hic exstinguitur16 17.

---

English Translation

Question V. Whether the character is imprinted deletably or indelibly.

Fifthly it is asked whether the character is imprinted deletably or indelibly. And that it is imprinted indelibly seems to be the case:

1. Because the Sacraments in which the character is imprinted are in no way repeated1; but if it were deleted, they could and should be repeated: therefore it is not deleted.

2. Likewise, the character stands together with fault, as is clear in a wicked priest, therefore it is not repugnant to fault; it stands also together with ignorance, as in a baptized infant2, therefore it seems that it has no contrary by which it might be deleted; and it is in a perpetual subject: therefore its impression is indelible.

On the contrary: 1. It is possible for someone baptized to have the character of the beast, of which it is treated in Apocalypse, chapter fourteen3; but no one can at once please God and the devil: therefore no one can at once have the sign of the one and of the other: therefore one character can delete and destroy the other.

2. Likewise, the character of the beast is deletable, because no one is so wicked that he cannot be made good4: therefore by similarity the character of Christ [is deletable], since one who is good can be made wicked.

3. Likewise, if the character is indelible, I ask from what it has this. If from the efficient [cause]; but sanctifying grace is from God, and yet is deletable. If from the subject: then whatever is in the soul is indelible. Moreover, that it should rather be deletable by reason of the subject seems [right]: because it is received voluntarily; but what is subject to the will is variable5: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that it is deleted after this life seems [the case] in the Blessed: because it is in part6, for the imperfect light is much more [so] than faith: therefore if faith falls away, so also does the character.

5. Likewise, that it is deleted in the damned seems [the case]: because the character in some way fits one for grace7; but then they will be wholly unfit: therefore they will lack the character.

Conclusion.

Conclusion. The character is an indelible sign, because it is a habit impressed on a perpetual subject for the purpose of distinguishing.

I respond: It must be said that it is the common opinion that the character is an indelible property. But concerning the cause of this indelibility different [authors] hold differently.

For some say that, because the character is in the soul according to its substance or essence, and this is perpetual and invariable, therefore the character also [is so]. — But this was disproved above8.

Others say that, because it is in the soul according to the cognitive power, which is not subject to variability as is the will — for we know certain things even with the will unwilling — therefore it is invariable. — But this does not hold, because through ignorance the cognitive habits are expelled9, but not the character.

A third group says that, just as from the obligation of matrimony an insoluble bond is contracted as long as one lives, so likewise from the reception of a Sacrament: namely because there is there a certain spiritual matrimony; and since both God and the soul are things having a perpetual duration, therefore the character always endures. — But although this can be said of baptism, where there is a certain contracting of matrimony10, yet not [so] in the other Sacraments.

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that the perpetuity of the character is taken principally from its condition and nature. — Whence it must be noted that there is an innate habit, and this is wholly indelible; and there is an acquired habit, and this, because it is from acquisition, can be lost; and there is an infused or given habit, and this is twofold. One is given for directing, and because the powers can be deflected, therefore it is deletable — for it can find a repugnance in the subject — and another [is] impressed for distinguishing, and to this the direction11 or deflection of the power is not repugnant. For if anything were repugnant, this alone would be the opposite consignation; but the opposite cannot be, because God alone can consign His own image: therefore, if it must be signed with an opposite sign, it will be done by God alone. But He never imprints a sign contrary to Himself; therefore it is necessary that the character persevere eternally. Since, therefore, the character is a property existing in a perpetual subject, in which it cannot have a repugnance, therefore its impression is perpetual.

To the objections: To 1 and 2. To that which is objected concerning the character of the beast, it must be said that the character of the beast is not called some seal which the devil has impressed on the soul, but a fault perpetrated according to its will, in which the soul is disposed through obstinacy toward perpetuity; and therefore it is not entirely similar12.

To 3. To that which is asked, from what it has this; it must be said that [it has it] from its condition, with the subject concurring, not being repugnant; and from the efficient [cause] not producing the contrary nor withdrawing [it]13.

To 5. To that which is objected concerning the damned, it must be said that in the damned it remains for confusion, in the Blessed for whatever degree of adornment.

To 4. As to what is objected, that it is in part; it must be said that the imperfection of the character is compatible with the perfection of glory14; but it is not so with the imperfection of faith, because faith, insofar as it is a virtue, implies an enigma and the absence of the thing believed, and this is repugnant to the state of glory; and therefore it is voided, not insofar as it is light only, but insofar as it has annexed an enigma and the absence of the thing in itself, which is essential to faith insofar as it is a virtue; otherwise, if it saw with certitude, there would be no merit15. But it is not so with the character, since it implies a certain consignation and a certain light; and this has no opposition to the perfect light nor has it opposition to the darkness of punishment on account of the smallness of its light: therefore it is neither voided there nor extinguished here16 17.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Cfr. quaest. seq., lit. Magistri, d. VII. 3, ibid. Comment. dub. 6, lit. Magistri, d. XXV. c. 1; nec non d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.
    Cf. the following question, Lombard's text, d. VII. 3, and there the Commentary, dub. 6; Lombard's text, d. XXV, c. 1; and also d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 ff.
  2. 2
    Vide supra q. 2. solut. ad obiect. de assimilatione.
    See above, q. 2, the solution to the objection concerning assimilation.
  3. 3
    Vers. 9. et 11.
    Verses 9 and 11.
  4. 4
    Hinc August. dicit, de nemine desperandum esse, dum est in via. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 584, nota 8.
    Hence Augustine says that no one is to be despaired of while he is on the way. Cf. vol. III, p. 584, note 8.
  5. 5
    Cfr. Damasc. I. de Fide orthod. c. 3. et II. c. 27. seq. — Superius post indelebile codd. M addit quod falsum est.
    Cf. John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith I, c. 3, and II, c. 27 f. — Above, after indelebile, codices M add quod falsum est («which is false»).
  6. 6
    Epist. I. Cor. 13, 10: Cum autem venerit quod perfectum est evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. — De charactere, in quantum est lumen, vide supra q. 1. circa finem corp.
    First Epistle to the Corinthians 13:10: «But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.» Cf. III Sent. d. 31, a. 2, q. 1. — On the character insofar as it is light, see above, q. 1, near the end of the body.
  7. 7
    Cfr. supra q. 2.
    Cf. above, q. 2.
  8. 8
    Cod. U addit perpetuus et. Mox pro sentiunt cod. G senserunt.
    Codex U adds perpetuus et («perpetual and»). Shortly, for sentiunt («they hold») codex G reads senserunt («they held»).
  9. 9
    Quaest. 3.
    Question 3.
  10. 10
    Aristot., de Longitud. et brevit. vitae, c. 2: Ignorantiae quidem corruptio reminiscentia et disciplina, scientiae autem oblivio et deceptio.
    Aristotle, On Length and Shortness of Life, c. 2: «The corruption of ignorance is indeed recollection and instruction, but [the corruption] of knowledge is forgetfulness and deception.»
  11. 11
    Per actum renuntiandi diabolo et credendi in Deum. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — Superius pro scilicet quia, quod habent codd. G I, cod. F (E a secunda manu) quia, alii codd. et ed. I sed quia, Vat. et quia.
    Through the act of renouncing the devil and believing in God. Cf. here Lombard's text, c. 6. — Above, for scilicet quia («namely because»), which codices G I have, codex F (E by a second hand) [reads] quia; other codices and ed. I [read] sed quia; the Vatican [edition reads] et quia.
  12. 12
    Edd. indirectio, cod. A distinctioni.
    The editions [read] indirectio; codex A [reads] distinctioni.
  13. 13
    Beda, II. in Apoc. 14, 11: Bestiam sanctus Augustinus [inter opera eius, Expos. in Apoc. hom. 11.] impiam civitatem, imaginem vero eius simulationem avis [ita edd. pro Agni] id est fallaci imagine christianos, characterem autem notam criminis interpretatur, quam adorari et subiici ei et consentiri dicit. — Pro in qua, quod habent codd. E F, alii et edd. in quo.
    Bede, II, on Apocalypse 14:11: St. Augustine [among his works, Exposition on the Apocalypse, hom. 11] interprets the beast as the impious city, its image as the feigning of the bird [thus the editions, for of the Lamb], that is, [Christians] under a false image of Christians, and the character as the mark of crime, which he says is adored and submitted to and consented to. — For in qua («in which» [fem.]), which codices E F have, others and the editions [read] in quo («in which» [neut.]).
  14. 14
    Supple cum Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 8. a. 1. § 5, adminiculum.
    Supply, with Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 8, m. 8, a. 1, § 5, the support [of the argument].
  15. 15
    Permulti codd. et ed. I omittunt gloriae, et pro quod imperfectio characteris substituunt vel quod imperfectio caritatis vel quod sua imperfectio, cod. G legit bene: quod sua perfectio, sicut et perfectio caritatis, compatitur secum imperfectionem. Subinde auctoritate codd. A bb et Alex. Hal., p. IV. q. 8. a. 1. § 5, nec non contextu exigente, substituimus de imperfectione fidei pro de perfectione fidei.
    Very many codices and ed. I omit gloriae («of glory»), and for quod imperfectio characteris («that the imperfection of the character») substitute either quod imperfectio caritatis («that the imperfection of charity») or quod sua imperfectio («that its imperfection»); codex G reads well: quod sua perfectio, sicut et perfectio caritatis, compatitur secum imperfectionem («that its perfection, like the perfection of charity, is compatible with imperfection»). Thereupon, on the authority of codices A bb and of Alexander of Hales, p. IV, q. 8, a. 1, § 5, and as the context requires, we have substituted de imperfectione fidei («of the imperfection of faith») for de perfectione fidei («of the perfection of faith»).
  16. 16
    Cfr. III. Sent. d. 24. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. — Pro videret certitudinaliter Vat. videretur praesentialiter.
    Cf. III Sent. d. 24, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 31, a. 2, q. 1. — For videret certitudinaliter («saw with certitude») the Vatican [edition reads] videretur praesentialiter («were seen presentially»).
  17. 17
    Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion to the 4th question of this article. ---
← Dist. 6, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4Dist. 6, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 6→