Distinction 13, Question 2: On the Matter of the Sacrament of Penance
Distinctio XIII, Questio II: De Materia Sacramenti Poenitentiae
Gabriel BielDistinctionis tredecime questio secunda.
tamen qui dicunt quod ipse suscipiens sacramenti fit materia, unde dicit Gerson in suis floribus moralibus. Materia sufficiens in sacramento confessionis est bonus peccator contritus, sponte se subijciens sacerdoti. Sed improprie videtur suscipiens dici materia sacramenti, quia simili ratione posset minister dici materia vel saltem forma, quod nulli dicit. Unde inter ministrantem et suscipientem materiam et formam debet esse distinctio. In illud sustinendo, quia forte in sacramento matrimonii illa distinctio salvari non potest, saltem realis, ut dicetur. Potest poni triplex materia sacramenti penitentie. Remotissima, et sunt peccata. Remota, est peccator contritus. Propinqua, est ipsa confessio. Quod tamen materia et forma ponitur in sacramentis, non proprie sed metaphorice, dictum est supra dist. 5. q. 1.
Dicitur in definitione sacramenti penie sub certa verborum forma, ubi tangit formam huius sacramenti, que est absolutio sacerdotalis. Non autem necesse est hanc formam absolutionis ita precisam esse sicut in baptismo vel eucaristia, quia sufficit quod exprimat actum absolventis, sicut in iudice publico non oportet esse limitata verba. Ait enim unus, ut Scotus q. 4. huius distinctionis de Theodoro martire: iubeo ignibus tradi. Alius de Lipziano: gladio animadverti (id est puniri). Placet. Communiter tamen ista verba sunt apta: ego absolvo te. Quecunque alia premittantur vel consequantur secundum diversam consuetudinem in diversis ecclesiis, hec Scotus. Altarani dicit quod forma absolutionis hec est: Absolvo te ab omnibus peccatis tuis. Et sumitur ex verbis Christi Math. 16 ad Petrum: Quodcunque solveris super terram erit solutum in celis. Absolutiones autem in publico facte, ut: misereatur tui etc., vel indulgentiam et remissionem te, non sunt sacramentales, sed orationes ordinate ad remissionem peccatorum venialium. Et qui in sacramentali absolutione non sufficeret eas dicere, quia presbyter non per eas vult fieri absolutionem, sed petit ut fiat. Premittitur tamen deprecatio in sacramentali absolutione ut effectus absolutionis non impediat, non tamen est de essentia sacramenti. Et quia de principali absolutione est ministerium sacerdotis, convenienter apponitur aliquid quod pertineat ad auctoritatem principalis absolventis, utique: Ego absolvo te a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Unde videntur illa verba omnimodis sufficere et esse congrua, hec enim exprimunt ministri rei actum, et personam suscipientem a peccatis a quibus absolvit, auctoritatem principalem. Licet secundum Scotum illa soli sint necessaria: absolvo te.
Cetera que in forma illa a quibusdam adduntur, superflua sunt et periculosa, ut sunt illa: professis, contrritis, oblitis, quia secundum multos non prerequiritur contritio, sed sufficit attritio. Sic quod quantum ad attritos non contritos frustraretur effectus absolutionis.
Preterea cum dicitur absolvo te a peccatis, omnia peccata includuntur et ab omnibus absolvitur si non ponit obicem. Unum enim peccatum mortale saltem sine alio non remittitur. Si vero ponit obicem, non omnia quorum habet memoriam praetermittendo, aut propositi de peccata continuandi, aut complacentiam in commissis, iam non absolvit, queci
op verba pferant fis rac. z tym de forma. Dicit cofequenter in diffinitione cum debita intentione plata. quia intentio ministri requirit in omnibus sacramentis faciendi illud quod ecclia intendit. vt lacius dictum est de baptismo.
Dicit ex institutione diuina efficaciter. vbi duo tangunt. cz institutio eius. que sicut alioy sacramentoy fieri no potuit nisi a christo. vt dictum est dist.j.q.2. Sz qn z vbi instituti sit. dicet in tertio articulo. scom efficatia cationis eius. qua est signum certum demonstratiui sp his effecti. nihil ponat over. Sicut lacius expositum est de sacramentis in genere.q.j.dist.
Erbijs omnibus colligi posset quid nomis sacramenti pnie clari. fic Sacramentum pnie. est platio certoy verborum sup homine peccata sua confitente. a sacerdote ydoneo. debita intentione. ex institutione diuina efficaciter causantium absolutionem confitentis a peccatis. Et patent clausule. Nam quod dicit ydoneo. excludit sacerdotem auctoritatem absoluendi confitente non habentem vel vtino potentem. Correlarii pnia sacramenti in re nihil aliud est nisi verba formalia dicto modo prolata.
Secundo notandi. Quod licet apud omnes concedat. quod sacramentum pnie delet culpam. quomodo tamen ista deletio intelligenda sit. diverse sit opinio. vna est Hugonis. vbi videt sentire. in hoc solvit peccata sacerdos evangelice. qa ostendit ligata vel soluta. Vn dicit bis quod sacerdotes peccata dimittit vel retinet. dum dimissa a deo vel retenta iudicant z ostendunt. Ex quibus prosequenter sequit. quod practica penie no remittit culpam. fz a deo per contritionem preuiam est remissa. priusquam suscipiat sacramentum in effectu. licet non prius nisi suscipiat in voto z proposito. Et ad hoc multa adducit que ibi patent in textu. Et illam opin. coiter sequunt doctores antiqui.
Sed Scoti q.4. huius dist. opposita tenet opinio. quod per etia virtute huius sacramenti culpa remittitur. que sine hoc sacramento in actu no remitteret. Vn arguit contra primam opinionem dicens. ista opinio videt nimis derogare sacramento penie. Nam etiam causa. per sacramentum penie nunquam deleret peccatum. sed necesse esset prius deleri per contritionem ad hoc quod digne susciperet sacramentum penie. quia nullus digne ostendit mundus a lepra peti. nisi prius fit immunis ab eo. Sz hoc est inconueniens. quia tunc sequeretur quod penitentia non esset sacramentum noue legis. nec aliqua causalitate vel dispositione causale haberet ad primam gratiam. Preterea sequeretur quod nunquam sacramentum penie posset esse secunda tabula post naufragii. quod nunquam liberaret naufragam a periculo submersionis. Item susceptio illius sacramenti est instrumentum ad gratiam. id est dispositio efficax z necessaria ex statuto diuino ad gratie susciptionem. Instrumentum aut vel dispositio puia non est signum rememoratiuum siue ostensivum alicuius. vt iam preteriti. sed futuri. g collatio sacramenti penie ad hoc vt digne fiat. no optet vt sit signi presentis absolutionis diuine. Dicit ergo quod sacramentum penie potest digne recipi ab attrito. hoc tanta attritione que no suffis
ideo superfluam addunt officeret ad suscipiendi gratiam in termino attritionis sine sacramento qua tamen recipit vigore absolutionis sacramentalis. vt dicit dist.18.dist.14.q.4. vbi latius prosequitur. Dicit z ita deus requirit dispositionem de congruo ad hoc vt peccatori offerat gratiam. hoc non quod alliget potentiam suam sacramento. quin etiam sine dispositione puia z congrua z sufficeret offerat per sacramenti gratiam. hoc est maioris misericordie. sed duplicem viam instituere per quam iustificet peccatorem quod ipsum ad vnam viam artare. Sicut z adultus primam gratiam delenem originale potest habere duplici via. cz ex bono motu disponente ad illam de congruo. vel ex susceptione baptismi. sic in proposito. Et hoc declarat sic. Ad primam susciptioem gratie requirit aliquis motus meritorii de congruo. Ad secundam aut no requiritur nisi voluntaria susceptio baptismi z fine peccati actione. hoc est cum intentione suscipiendi quod confert ecclia. sine actu vel voluntate peccati mortalis. ita quod in modo requirit aliquid opus intrinsicum aliquomodo accepti tanquam meriti de congruo. In secundo solum requirit opus externum cum remotione impedimenti interioris. Non soli ergo attritus per aliquo tempus usquam ad certi instans in vltimo instanti recipit gratiam delenem peccati tanis per virtutem meriti de congruo. Sed non his talem actum qui sufficiat ad meriti de congruo. sed tantum huius voluntatem suscipiendi sacramentum ecclie sine obice peccati mortalis actualiter in facto vel in voluntate inherentis suscipit
The Thirteenth Distinction, Second Question.
nevertheless, those who say that the one receiving the sacrament becomes its matter — whence Gerson says in his Flores morales: “The sufficient matter in the sacrament of confession is a good, contrite sinner who voluntarily submits himself to the priest.” Yet it seems improper to call the recipient the matter of the sacrament, because by the same reasoning the minister could be called the matter or at least the form, which no one says. Hence between the one ministering and the one receiving there must be a distinction of matter and form. In support of this view, because perhaps in the sacrament of matrimony that distinction cannot be preserved — at least not a real one, as will be said — one may posit a threefold matter of the sacrament of penance. The most remote [matter] consists in the sins. The remote [matter] is the contrite sinner. The proximate [matter] is the confession itself. That matter and form are posited in the sacraments, however, not properly but metaphorically, was stated above, dist. 5, q. 1.
The definition of the sacrament of penance says under a certain verbal form, where it touches on the form of this sacrament, which is the priestly absolution. It is not necessary, however, that this form of absolution be as precisely fixed as in baptism or the Eucharist, because it suffices that it express the act of the one absolving, just as with a public judge the words need not be fixed. For one says, as Scotus [notes] in q. 4 of this distinction regarding the martyr Theodore: “I order [him] to be handed over to the flames.” Another, regarding Lipzianus: “Let [him] be punished by the sword” (that is, let him be punished). “Resolved.” Commonly, however, these words are apt: ego absolvo te [“I absolve you”]. Whatever else is prefaced or follows according to the varying custom of different churches — this is Scotus’s [view]. Altarani says that the form of absolution is: Absolvo te ab omnibus peccatis tuis [“I absolve you from all your sins”]. And this is taken from the words of Christ in Matthew 16 to Peter: “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Absolutions performed publicly, such as misereatur tui [“may [God] have mercy on you”], etc., or indulgentiam et remissionem te [“forgiveness and remission to you”], are not sacramental but prayers ordered toward the remission of venial sins. And it would not suffice for sacramental absolution to say only these, because through them the priest does not will the absolution to be effected but rather petitions that it be effected. A deprecatory prayer is nonetheless prefaced to sacramental absolution so that the effect of the absolution not be impeded, yet it is not of the essence of the sacrament. And because the principal absolution is the ministry of the priest, it is fitting that something be added that pertains to the authority of the principal absolver, namely: Ego absolvo te a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti [“I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”]. Hence those words seem altogether sufficient and fitting, for they express the act of the minister, the person of the recipient, the sins from which [the minister] absolves, and the principal authority. Although according to Scotus only these words are necessary: absolvo te [“I absolve you”].
The other things that are added to that form by some are superfluous and dangerous, such as: professis, contritis, oblitis [“for those who have declared [their sins], are contrite, have forgotten”], because according to many contrition is not a prerequisite — attrition suffices. So that, as regards the attrited who are not contrite, the effect of absolution would be frustrated [by such an addition].
Furthermore, when it is said I absolve you from sins, all sins are included and one is absolved from all of them if one places no obstacle. For one mortal sin, at least, is not remitted without another [being remitted as well]. If, however, one places an obstacle — whether by passing over in silence all those of which one has memory, or by the intention to continue sinning, or by complacency in what has been committed — then [the priest] does not absolve, even if [the words]
[The preceding discussion concerns] whether the words convey the sacramental reality, and similarly concerning the form. He [the Master] says consequently in the definition: conferred with due intention, because the intention of the minister is required in all sacraments to do what the Church intends, as was stated more fully in the treatment of baptism.
He says from divine institution, efficaciously, where two things are touched upon: first, its institution, which, like that of the other sacraments, could only have been effected by Christ, as was stated in dist. 1, q. 2. But when and where it was instituted will be addressed in the third article. Second, its efficacy, by which it is a certain demonstrative sign of its effects for those who place no obstacle. As was expounded more fully concerning the sacraments in general, q. 1 of that distinction.
From all these words it is possible to gather what the name “sacrament of penance” clearly means: the sacrament of penance is the pronouncement of certain words over a man confessing his sins, by a suitable priest, with due intention, efficaciously causing, from divine institution, the absolution of the penitent from sins. And the clauses are clear. For when he says suitable, this excludes a priest who does not have authority to absolve the penitent, or who lacks the capacity to use it. As a corollary: penance as a sacrament in its reality is nothing other than the formal words pronounced in the manner described.
Secondly, it is to be noted that while everyone concedes that the sacrament of penance destroys guilt, yet how this destruction is to be understood is a matter of diverse opinion. One view is that of Hugo [of St. Victor], who seems to hold that the priest forgives sins evangelically, inasmuch as he declares them bound or loosed. Hence he says that priests remit or retain sins insofar as they judge and declare [sins] to be remitted by God or retained. From which it follows that the practice of penance does not remit guilt, but [that guilt] has already been remitted by God through prior contrition before the person receives the sacrament in effect, though not before he receives it in vow and intention. And for this he adduces many arguments that are plain there in the text. And this opinion is commonly followed by the ancient doctors.
But Scotus, in q. 4 of this distinction, holds the opposite opinion: that through penance the guilt is remitted by virtue of this sacrament, which guilt would not be remitted without this sacrament in act. Hence he argues against the first opinion, saying: this opinion seems to derogate too much from the sacrament of penance. For even so, by means of the sacrament of penance sin would never be destroyed, but it would necessarily first have to be destroyed through contrition in order that one might worthily receive the sacrament of penance — because no one worthily shows himself cleansed of leprosy to the priest unless he is first free of it. But this is absurd, because then it would follow that penance is not a sacrament of the new law, nor would it have any causal efficacy or dispositional causality toward first grace. Furthermore, it would follow that the sacrament of penance could never be the second plank after shipwreck, that it could never free the shipwrecked from the danger of drowning. Likewise, the reception of that sacrament is an instrument for grace, that is, an efficacious and necessary disposition by divine statute for the reception of grace. But a purely instrumental or dispositional [cause] is not a commemorative or ostensive sign of something already past, but of something future. Therefore the conferral of the sacrament of penance, in order that it be worthily received, need not be a sign of a present divine absolution. He says therefore that the sacrament of penance can be worthily received by one who is merely attrited — with an attrition of such a degree that does not suffice
[Those who add the requirement of contrition] therefore superfluously add what would suffice for receiving grace at the terminal point of attrition without the sacrament — yet [the attrited penitent] nevertheless receives [grace] by virtue of sacramental absolution, as he says in dist. 18 and dist. 14, q. 4, where he pursues this more fully. He says also that God in this way requires a disposition of congruence in order that he may offer grace to a sinner — not because he binds his own power to the sacrament (since to offer grace through the sacrament even without any prior, congruent, and sufficient disposition would be a still greater mercy) — but [rather] in order to institute a twofold path by which he justifies the sinner, rather than to constrain him to a single path. Just as an adult can obtain the first grace destroying original [sin] by two paths: either through a good motion disposing him to it de congruo, or through the reception of baptism — so too in the present case. And he explains it thus. For the first reception of grace, some meritorious motion de congruo is required. For the second, however, nothing more is required than the voluntary reception of baptism and the absence of sinful action — that is, with the intention of receiving what the Church confers, without the act or will of mortal sin. So that in the first mode something intrinsic is required, accepted in some measure as merit de congruo. In the second, only an external act is required along with the removal of the interior impediment. Therefore not only does the attrited person receive, at some point up to and including the final instant, the grace destroying such sin by virtue of merit de congruo; but not having an act of the sort that would suffice for merit de congruo, but only the will to receive the sacrament of the Church without the obstacle of mortal sin actually present in deed or in an adhering will, [such a person] receives