Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 86 [ << | >> ]
Deinde considerandum est de effectu poenitentiae.
|
We must now consider the effect of Penance; and
|
| Circa primum quaeruntur sex. | Under the first head there are six points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum peccata mortalia per poenitentiam auferantur. | (1) Whether all mortal sins are taken away by Penance? |
| Secundo, utrum possint sine poenitentia tolli. | (2) Whether they can be taken away without Penance? |
| Tertio, utrum possit remitti unum sine alio. | (3) Whether one can be taken away without the other? |
| Quarto, utrum poenitentia auferat culpam remanente reatu. | (4) Whether Penance takes away the guilt while the debt remains? |
| Quinto, utrum remaneant reliquiae peccatorum. | (5) Whether any remnants of sin remain? |
| Sexto, utrum auferre peccatum sit effectus poenitentiae inquantum est virtus, vel inquantum est sacramentum. | (6) Whether the removal of sin is the effect of Penance as a virtue, or as a sacrament? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 86 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per poenitentiam non removeantur omnia peccata. Dicit enim apostolus, Heb. XII, quod Esau non invenit locum poenitentiae, quamvis cum lacrimis inquisisset eam, Glossa, idest, non invenit locum veniae et benedictionis per poenitentiam. Et II Machab. IX dicitur de Antiocho, orabat scelestus ille dominum, a quo non erat misericordiam consecuturus. Non ergo videtur quod per poenitentiam omnia peccata tollantur. |
Objection 1: It would seem that not all sins are taken away by Penance. For the Apostle says (Heb. 12:17) that Esau "found no place of repentance, although with tears he had sought it," which a gloss explains as meaning that "he found no place of pardon and blessing through Penance": and it is related (2 Macc. 9:13) of Antiochus, that "this wicked man prayed to the Lord, of Whom he was not to obtain mercy." Therefore it does not seem that all sins are taken away by Penance. |
| Praeterea, dicit Augustinus, in libro de sermone Dom. in monte, quod tanta est labes illius peccati (scilicet, cum post agnitionem Dei per gratiam Christi, oppugnat aliquis fraternitatem, et adversus ipsam gratiam invidiae facibus agitatur), ut deprecandi humilitatem subire non possit, etiam si peccatum suum mala conscientia agnoscere et annuntiare cogatur. Non ergo omne peccatum potest per poenitentiam tolli. | Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i) that "so great is the stain of that sin (namely, when a man, after coming to the knowledge of God through the grace of Christ, resists fraternal charity, and by the brands of envy combats grace itself) that he is unable to humble himself in prayer, although he is forced by his wicked conscience to acknowledge and confess his sin." Therefore not every sin can be taken away by Penance. |
| Praeterea, dominus dicit, Matth. XII, qui dixerit contra spiritum sanctum verbum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro. Non ergo omne peccatum remitti potest per poenitentiam. |
Objection 3: Further, our Lord said (Mt. 12:32): "He that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." Therefore not every sin can be pardoned through Penance. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Ezech. XVIII, omnium iniquitatum eius quas operatus est, non recordabor amplius. | On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 18:22): "I will not remember" any more "all his iniquities that he hath done." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod hoc quod aliquod peccatum per poenitentiam tolli non possit, posset contingere dupliciter, uno modo, quia aliquis de peccato poenitere non posset; alio modo, quia poenitentia non posset delere peccatum. Et primo quidem modo, non possunt deleri peccata Daemonum, et etiam hominum damnatorum, quia affectus eorum sunt in malo confirmati, ita quod non potest eis displicere peccatum inquantum est culpa, sed solum displicet eis inquantum est poena quam patiuntur; ratione cuius aliquam poenitentiam, sed infructuosam habent, secundum illud Sap. V, poenitentiam agentes, et prae angustia spiritus gementes. Unde talis poenitentia non est cum spe veniae, sed cum desperatione. Tale autem non potest esse peccatum aliquod hominis viatoris, cuius liberum arbitrium flexibile est ad bonum et ad malum. Unde dicere quod aliquod peccatum sit in hac vita de quo aliquis poenitere non possit, est erroneum. Primo quidem, quia per hoc tolleretur libertas arbitrii. Secundo, quia derogaretur virtuti gratiae, per quam moveri potest cor cuiuscumque peccatoris ad poenitendum, secundum illud Proverb. XXI cor regis in manu Dei, et quocumque voluerit vertet illud. | I answer that, The fact that a sin cannot be taken away by Penance may happen in two ways: first, because of the impossibility of repenting of sin; secondly, because of Penance being unable to blot out a sin. In the first way the sins of the demons and of men who are lost, cannot be blotted out by Penance, because their will is confirmed in evil, so that sin cannot displease them as to its guilt, but only as to the punishment which they suffer, by reason of which they have a kind of repentance, which yet is fruitless, according to Wis. 5:3: "Repenting, and groaning for anguish of spirit." Consequently such Penance brings no hope of pardon, but only despair. Nevertheless no sin of a wayfarer can be such as that, because his will is flexible to good and evil. Wherefore to say that in this life there is any sin of which one cannot repent, is erroneous, first, because this would destroy free-will, secondly, because this would be derogatory to the power of grace, whereby the heart of any sinner whatsoever can be moved to repent, according to Prov. 21:1: "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever He will He shall turn it." |
| Quod autem secundo modo non possit per veram poenitentiam aliquod peccatum remitti, est etiam erroneum. Primo quidem, quia repugnat divinae misericordiae, de qua dicitur, Ioel II, quod benignus et misericors est, et multae misericordiae, et praestabilis super malitia. Vinceretur quodammodo enim Deus ab homine, si homo peccatum vellet deleri, quod Deus delere non vellet. Secundo, quia hoc derogaret virtuti passionis Christi, per quam poenitentia operatur, sicut et cetera sacramenta, cum scriptum sit, I Ioan. II, ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, non solum nostris, sed etiam totius mundi. |
It is also erroneous to say that any sin cannot be pardoned through true Penance. First, because this is contrary to Divine mercy, of which it is written (Joel 2:13) that God is "gracious and merciful, patient, and rich in mercy, and ready to repent of the evil"; for, in a manner, God would be overcome by man, if man wished a sin to be blotted out, which God were unwilling to blot out. Secondly, because this would be derogatory to the power of Christ's Passion, through which Penance produces its effect, as do the other sacraments, since it is written (1 Jn. 2:2): "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." |
| Unde simpliciter dicendum est quod omne peccatum in hac vita per poenitentiam deleri potest. | Therefore we must say simply that, in this life, every sin can be blotted out by true Penance. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Esau non vere poenituit. Quod patet ex hoc quod dixit, venient dies luctus patris mei, et occidam Iacob fratrem meum. Similiter etiam nec Antiochus vere poenituit. Dolebat enim de culpa praeterita non propter offensam Dei, sed propter infirmitatem corporalem quam patiebatur. |
Reply to Objection 1: Esau did not truly repent. This is evident from his saying (Gn. 27:41): "The days will come of the mourning of my father, and I will kill my brother Jacob." Likewise neither did Antiochus repent truly; since he grieved for his past sin, not because he had offended God thereby, but on account of the sickness which he suffered in his body. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illud verbum Augustini sic est intelligendum, tanta est labes illius peccati ut deprecandi humilitatem subire non possit, scilicet, de facili, secundum quod dicitur ille non posse sanari qui non potest de facili sanari. Potest tamen hoc fieri per virtutem divinae gratiae, quae etiam interdum in profundum maris convertit, ut dicitur in Psalmo. |
Reply to Objection 2: These words of Augustine should be understood thus: "So great is the stain of that sin, that man is unable to humble himself in prayer," i.e. it is not easy for him to do so; in which sense we say that a man cannot be healed, when it is difficult to heal him. Yet this is possible by the power of God's grace, which sometimes turns men even "into the depths of the sea" (Ps. 67:23). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod illud verbum vel blasphemia contra spiritum sanctum est finalis impoenitentia, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis domini, quae penitus irremissibilis est, quia post finem huius vitae non est remissio peccatorum. Vel, si intelligatur per blasphemiam spiritus sancti peccatum quod fit ex certa malitia, vel etiam ipsa blasphemia spiritus sancti, dicitur non remitti, scilicet de facili, quia tale non habet in se causam excusationis; vel quia pro tali peccato punitur aliquis et in hoc saeculo et in futuro; ut in secunda parte expositum est. | Reply to Objection 3: The word or blasphemy spoken against the Holy Ghost is final impenitence, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xi), which is altogether unpardonable, because after this life is ended, there is no pardon of sins. or, if by the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, we understand sin committed through certain malice, this means either that the blasphemy itself against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable, i.e. not easily pardonable, or that such a sin does not contain in itself any motive for pardon, or that for such a sin a man is punished both in this and in the next world, as we explained in the SS, Question [14], Article [3]. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 86 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sine poenitentia peccatum remitti possit. Non enim est minor virtus Dei circa adultos quam circa pueros. Sed pueris peccata dimittit sine poenitentia. Ergo etiam et adultis. | Objection 1: It would seem that sin can be pardoned without Penance. For the power of God is no less with regard to adults than with regard to children. But He pardons the sins of children without Penance. Therefore He also pardons adults without penance. |
| Praeterea, Deus virtutem suam sacramentis non alligavit. Sed poenitentia est quoddam sacramentum. Ergo virtute divina possunt peccata sine poenitentia dimitti. | Objection 2: Further, God did not bind His power to the sacraments. But Penance is a sacrament. Therefore by God's power sin can be pardoned without Penance. |
| Praeterea, maior est misericordia Dei quam misericordia hominis. Sed homo interdum remittit offensam suam homini etiam non poenitenti, unde et ipse dominus mandat, Matth. V, diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos. Ergo multo magis Deus dimittit offensam suam hominibus non poenitentibus. |
Objection 3: Further, God's mercy is greater than man's. Now man sometimes forgives another for offending him, without his repenting: wherefore our Lord commanded us (Mt. 5:44): "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you." Much more, therefore, does God pardon men for offending him, without their repenting. |
| Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Ierem. XVIII, si poenitentiam egerit gens illa a malo quod fecit, agam et ego poenitentiam a malo quod cogitavi ut facerem ei. Et sic e converso videtur quod, si homo poenitentiam non agat, quod Deus ei non remittat offensam. |
On the contrary, The Lord said (Jer. 18:8): "If that nation... shall repent of their evil" which they have done, "I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do them," so that, on the other hand, if man "do not penance," it seems that God will not pardon him his sin. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod impossibile est peccatum actuale mortale sine poenitentia remitti, loquendo de poenitentia quae est virtus. Cum enim peccatum sit Dei offensa, eo modo Deus peccatum remittit quo remittit offensam in se commissam. Offensa autem directe opponitur gratiae, ex hoc enim dicitur aliquis alteri esse offensus, quod repellit eum a gratia sua. Sicut autem habitum est in secunda parte, hoc interest inter gratiam Dei et gratiam hominis, quod gratia hominis non causat, sed praesupponit bonitatem, veram vel apparentem, in homine grato, sed gratia Dei causat bonitatem in homine grato, eo quod bona voluntas Dei, quae in nomine gratiae intelligitur, est causa boni creati. Unde potest contingere quod homo remittat offensam qua offensus est alicui, absque aliqua immutatione voluntatis eius, non autem potest contingere quod Deus remittat offensam alicui absque immutatione voluntatis eius. Offensa autem peccati mortalis procedit ex hoc quod voluntas hominis est aversa a Deo per conversionem ad aliquod bonum commutabile. Unde requiritur ad remissionem divinae offensae quod voluntas hominis sic immutetur quod convertatur ad Deum, cum detestatione praedictae conversionis et proposito emendae. Quod pertinet ad rationem poenitentiae secundum quod est virtus. Et ideo impossibile est quod peccatum alicui remittatur sine poenitentia secundum quod est virtus. | I answer that, It is impossible for a mortal actual sin to be pardoned without penance, if we speak of penance as a virtue. For, as sin is an offense against God, He pardons sin in the same way as he pardons an offense committed against Him. Now an offense is directly opposed to grace, since one man is said to be offended with another, because he excludes him from his grace. Now, as stated in the FS, Question [110], Article [1], the difference between the grace of God and the grace of man, is that the latter does not cause, but presupposes true or apparent goodness in him who is graced, whereas the grace of God causes goodness in the man who is graced, because the good-will of God, which is denoted by the word "grace," is the cause of all created good. Hence it is possible for a man to pardon an offense, for which he is offended with someone, without any change in the latter's will; but it is impossible that God pardon a man for an offense, without his will being changed. Now the offense of mortal sin is due to man's will being turned away from God, through being turned to some mutable good. Consequently, for the pardon of this offense against God, it is necessary for man's will to be so changed as to turn to God and to renounce having turned to something else in the aforesaid manner, together with a purpose of amendment; all of which belongs to the nature of penance as a virtue. Therefore it is impossible for a sin to be pardoned anyone without penance as a virtue. |
| Sacramentum autem poenitentiae, sicut supra dictum est, perficitur per officium sacerdotis ligantis et solventis. Sine quo potest Deus peccatum remittere, sicut remisit Christus mulieri adulterae, ut legitur Ioan. VIII, et peccatrici, ut legitur Luc. VII. Quibus tamen non remisit peccata sine virtute poenitentiae; nam, sicut Gregorius dicit, in homilia, per gratiam traxit intus, scilicet ad poenitentiam, quam per misericordiam suscepit foris. |
But the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (Question [88], Article [3]), is perfected by the priestly office of binding and loosing, without which God can forgive sins, even as Christ pardoned the adulterous woman, as related in Jn. 8, and the woman that was a sinner, as related in Luke vii, whose sins, however, He did not forgive without the virtue of penance: for as Gregory states (Hom. xxxiii in Evang.), "He drew inwardly by grace," i.e. by penance, "her whom He received outwardly by His mercy." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in pueris non est nisi peccatum originale, quod non consistit in actuali deordinatione voluntatis, sed in quadam habituali deordinatione naturae, ut in secunda parte habitum est. Et ideo remittitur eis peccatum cum habituali immutatione per infusionem gratiae et virtutum, non autem cum actuali. Sed adulto in quo sunt actualia peccata, quae consistunt in deordinatione actuali voluntatis, non remittuntur peccata, etiam in Baptismo, sine actuali immutatione voluntatis, quod fit per poenitentiam. | Reply to Objection 1: In children there is none but original sin, which consists, not in an actual disorder of the will, but in a habitual disorder of nature, as explained in the FS, Question [82], Article [1], and so in them the forgiveness of sin is accompanied by a habitual change resulting from the infusion of grace and virtues, but not by an actual change. On the other hand, in the case of an adult, in whom there are actual sins, which consist in an actual disorder of the will, there is no remission of sins, even in Baptism, without an actual change of the will, which is the effect of Penance. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de poenitentia secundum quod est sacramentum. | Reply to Objection 2: This argument takes Penance as a sacrament. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod misericordia Dei est maioris virtutis quam misericordia hominis in hoc, quod immutat voluntatem hominis ad poenitendum, quod misericordia hominis facere non potest. | Reply to Objection 3: God's mercy is more powerful than man's, in that it moves man's will to repent, which man's mercy cannot do. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 86 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod possit per poenitentiam unum peccatum sine alio remitti. Dicitur enim Amos IV, plui super unam civitatem, et super alteram non plui, pars una compluta est, et pars super quam non plui, aruit. Quod exponens Gregorius, super Ezech., dicit, cum ille qui proximum odit ab aliis vitiis se corrigit, una et eadem civitas ex parte compluitur, et ex parte arida manet, quia sunt qui, cum quaedam vitia resecant, in aliis graviter perdurant. Ergo potest unum peccatum per poenitentiam remitti sine alio. | Objection 1: It would seem that by Penance one sin can be pardoned without another. For it is written (Amos 4:7): "I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon: and the piece whereupon I rained not, withered." These words are expounded by Gregory, who says (Hom. x super Ezech.): "When a man who hates his neighbor, breaks himself of other vices, rain falls on one part of the city, leaving the other part withered, for there are some men who, when they prune some vices, become much more rooted in others." Therefore one sin can be forgiven by Penance, without another. |
| Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, super beati immaculati, prima consolatio est, quia non obliviscitur misereri Deus, secunda per punitionem, ubi, et si fides desit, poena satisfacit et relevat. Potest ergo aliquis relevari ab aliquo peccato manente peccato infidelitatis. | Objection 2: Further, Ambrose in commenting on Ps. 118, "Blessed are the undefiled in the way," after expounding verse 136 ("My eyes have sent forth springs of water"), says that "the first consolation is that God is mindful to have mercy; and the second, that He punishes, for although faith be wanting, punishment makes satisfaction and raises us up." Therefore a man can be raised up from one sin, while the sin of unbelief remains. |
| Praeterea, eorum quae non necesse est esse simul, unum potest auferri sine alio. Sed peccata, ut in secunda parte habitum est, non sunt connexa, et ita unum eorum potest esse sine alio. Ergo unum eorum potest remitti sine alio per poenitentiam. | Objection 3: Further, when several things are not necessarily together, one can be removed without the other. Now it was stated in the FS, Question [73], Article [1] that sins are not connected together, so that one sin can be without another. Therefore also one sin can be taken away by Penance without another being taken away. |
| Praeterea, peccata sunt debita quae nobis relaxari petimus cum dicimus in oratione dominica, dimitte nobis debita nostra. Sed homo quandoque dimittit debitum unum sine alio. Ergo etiam Deus per poenitentiam dimittit unum peccatum sine alio. | Objection 4: Further, sins are the debts, for which we pray for pardon when we say in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses," etc. Now man sometimes forgives one debt without forgiving another. Therefore God also, by Penance, forgives one sin without another. |
| Praeterea, per dilectionem Dei relaxantur hominibus peccata, secundum illud Ierem. XXXI, in caritate perpetua dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans. Sed nihil prohibet quin Deus diligat hominem quantum ad unum, et sit ei offensus quantum ad aliud, sicut peccatorem diligit quantum ad naturam, odit autem quantum ad culpam. Ergo videtur possibile quod Deus per poenitentiam remittat unum peccatum sine alio. | Objection 5: Further, man's sins are forgiven him through the love of God, according to Jer. 31:3: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee." Now there is nothing to hinder God from loving a man in one respect, while being offended with him in another, even as He loves the sinner as regards his nature, while hating him for his sin. Therefore it seems possible for God, by Penance, to pardon one sin without another. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, sunt plures quos poenitet peccasse, sed non omnino, reservantes sibi quaedam in quibus delectentur, non animadvertentes dominum simul mutum et surdum a Daemonio liberasse, per hoc docens nos nunquam nisi de omnibus sanari. | On the contrary, Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "There are many who repent having sinned, but not completely; for they except certain things which give them pleasure, forgetting that our Lord delivered from the devil the man who was both dumb and deaf, whereby He shows us that we are never healed unless it be from all sins." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod impossibile est per poenitentiam unum peccatum sine alio remitti. Primo quidem, quia peccatum remittitur inquantum tollitur Dei offensa per gratiam, unde in secunda parte habitum est quod nullum peccatum potest remitti sine gratia. Omne autem peccatum mortale contrariatur gratiae, et excludit eam. Unde impossibile est quod unum peccatum sine alio remittatur. Secundo quia, sicut ostensum est, peccatum mortale non potest sine vera poenitentia remitti, ad quam pertinet deserere peccatum inquantum est contra Deum. Quod quidem est commune omnibus peccatis mortalibus. Ubi autem eadem ratio est et idem effectus. Unde non potest esse vere poenitens qui de uno peccato poenitet et non de alio. Si enim displiceret ei illud peccatum quia est contra Deum super omnia dilectum, quod requiritur ad rationem verae poenitentiae, sequeretur quod de omnibus peccatis poeniteret. Unde sequitur quod impossibile sit unum peccatum remitti sine alio. Tertio, quia hoc esset contra perfectionem misericordiae Dei, cuius perfecta sunt opera, ut dicitur Deut. XXXII. Unde cuius miseretur, totaliter miseretur. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, quaedam impietas infidelitatis est ab illo qui iustus et iustitia est, dimidiam sperare veniam. |
I answer that, It is impossible for Penance to take one sin away without another. First because sin is taken away by grace removing the offense against God. Wherefore it was stated in the FS, Question [109], Article [7]; FS, Question [113], Article [2] that without grace no sin can be forgiven. Now every mortal sin is opposed to grace and excludes it. Therefore it is impossible for one sin to be pardoned without another. Secondly, because, as shown above (Article [2]) mortal sin cannot be forgiven without true Penance, to which it belongs to renounce sin, by reason of its being against God, which is common to all mortal sins: and where the same reason applies, the result will be the same. Consequently a man cannot be truly penitent, if he repent of one sin and not of another. For if one particular sin were displeasing to him, because it is against the love of God above all things (which motive is necessary for true repentance), it follows that he would repent of all. Whence it follows that it is impossible for one sin to be pardoned through Penance, without another. Thirdly, because this would be contrary to the perfection of God's mercy, since His works are perfect, as stated in Dt. 32:4; wherefore whomsoever He pardons, He pardons altogether. Hence Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], that "it is irreverent and heretical to expect half a pardon from Him Who is just and justice itself." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum illud Gregorii non est intelligendum quantum ad remissionem culpae, sed quantum ad cessationem ab actu, quia interdum ille qui plura peccata consuevit committere, deserit unum, non tamen aliud. Quod quidem fit auxilio divino, quod tamen non pertingit usque ad remissionem culpae. | Reply to Objection 1: These words of Gregory do not refer to the forgiveness of the guilt, but to the cessation from act, because sometimes a man who has been wont to commit several kinds of sin, renounces one and not the other; which is indeed due to God's assistance, but does not reach to the pardon of the sin. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in verbo illo Ambrosii fides non potest accipi qua creditur in Christum, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. XV, si non venissem et locutus eis non fuissem, peccatum non haberent, scilicet infidelitatis, hoc enim est peccatum quo tenentur cuncta peccata. Sed accipitur fides pro conscientia, quia interdum per poenas quas quis patienter sustinet, consequitur remissionem peccati cuius conscientiam non habet. | Reply to Objection 2: In this saying of Ambrose "faith" cannot denote the faith whereby we believe in Christ, because, as Augustine says on Jn. 15:22, "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin" (viz. unbelief): "for this is the sin which contains all others": but it stands for consciousness, because sometimes a man receives pardon for a sin of which he is not conscious, through the punishment which he bears patiently. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod peccata, quamvis non sint connexa quantum ad conversionem ad bonum commutabile, sunt tamen connexa quantum ad aversionem a bono incommutabili, in qua conveniunt omnia peccata mortalia. Et ex hac parte habent rationem offensae, quam oportet per poenitentiam tolli. | Reply to Objection 3: Although sins are not connected in so far as they turn towards a mutable good, yet they are connected in so far as they turn away from the immutable Good, which applies to all mortal sins in common. and it is thus that they have the character of an offense which needs to be removed by Penance. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod debitum exterioris rei, puta pecuniae, non contrariatur amicitiae, ex qua debitum remittitur. Et ideo potest unum dimitti sine alio. Sed debitum culpae contrariatur amicitiae. Et ideo una culpa vel offensa non remittitur sine altera. Ridiculum etiam videretur quod aliquis ab homine veniam peteret de una offensa et non de alia. | Reply to Objection 4: Debt as regards external things, e.g. money, is not opposed to friendship through which the debt is pardoned. hence one debt can be condoned without another. On the other hand, the debt of sin is opposed to friendship, and so one sin or offense is not pardoned without another; for it would seem absurd for anyone to ask even a man to forgive him one offense and not another. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod dilectio qua Deus diligit hominis naturam, non ordinatur ad bonum gloriae, a qua impeditur homo per quodlibet mortale peccatum. Sed dilectio gratiae, per quam fit remissio peccati mortalis, ordinat hominem ad vitam aeternam, secundum illud Rom. VI, gratia Dei vita aeterna. Unde non est similis ratio. | Reply to Objection 5: The love whereby God loves man's nature, does not ordain man to the good of glory from which man is excluded by any mortal sin. but the love of grace, whereby mortal sin is forgiven, ordains man to eternal life, according to Rm. 6:23: "The grace of God (is) life everlasting." Hence there is no comparison. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 86 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod, remissa culpa per poenitentiam, non remaneat reatus poenae. Remota enim causa, removetur effectus. Sed culpa est causa reatus poenae, ideo enim est aliquis dignus poena quia culpam commisit. Ergo, remissa culpa, non potest remanere reatus poenae. | Objection 1: It would seem that no debt of punishment remains after the guilt has been forgiven through Penance. For when the cause is removed, the effect is removed. But the guilt is the cause of the debt of punishment: since a man deserves to be punished because he has been guilty of a sin. Therefore when the sin has been forgiven, no debt of punishment can remain. |
| Praeterea, sicut apostolus dicit, Rom. V, donum Christi est efficacius quam peccatum. Sed peccando homo simul incurrit culpam et poenae reatum. Ergo multo magis per donum gratiae simul remittitur culpa et tollitur poenae reatus. |
Objection 2: Further, according to the Apostle (Rm. 5) the gift of Christ is more effective than the sin of Adam. Now, by sinning, man incurs at the same time guilt and the debt of punishment. Much more therefore, by the gift of grace, is the guilt forgiven and at the same time the debt of punishment remitted. |
| Praeterea, remissio peccatorum fit in poenitentia per virtutem passionis Christi, secundum illud Rom. III, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius, propter remissionem praecedentium delictorum. Sed passio Christi sufficienter est satisfactoria pro omnibus peccatis, ut supra habitum est. Non ergo post remissionem culpae remanet aliquis reatus poenae. |
Objection 3: Further, the forgiveness of sins is effected in Penance through the power of Christ's Passion, according to Rm. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His Blood... for the remission of former sins." Now Christ's Passion made satisfaction sufficient for all sins, as stated above (Questions [48],49,79, Article [5]). Therefore after the guilt has been pardoned, no debt of punishment remains. |
| Sed contra est quod, II Reg. XII, dicitur quod, cum David poenitens dixisset ad Nathan, peccavi domino, dixit Nathan ad illum, dominus quoque transtulit peccatum tuum, non morieris. Veruntamen filius qui natus est tibi, morte morietur, quod fuit in poenam praecedentis peccati, ut ibidem dicitur. Ergo, remissa culpa, remanet reatus alicuius poenae. |
On the contrary, It is related (2 Kgs. 12:13) that when David penitent had said to Nathan: "I have sinned against the Lord," Nathan said to him: "The Lord also hath taken away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Nevertheless... the child that is born to thee shall surely die," which was to punish him for the sin he had committed, as stated in the same place. Therefore a debt of some punishment remains after the guilt has been forgiven. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, in peccato mortali sunt duo, scilicet aversio ab incommutabili bono, et conversio ad commutabile bonum inordinata. Ex parte igitur aversionis ab incommutabili bono, consequitur peccatum mortale reatus poenae aeternae, ut qui contra aeternum bonum peccavit, in aeternum puniatur. Ex parte etiam conversionis ad bonum commutabile, inquantum est inordinata, consequitur peccatum mortale reatus alicuius poenae, quia inordinatio culpae non reducitur ad ordinem iustitiae nisi per poenam; iustum est enim ut qui voluntati suae plus indulsit quam debuit, contra voluntatem suam aliquid patiatur, sic enim erit aequalitas; unde et Apoc. XVIII dicitur, quantum glorificavit se et in deliciis fuit, tantum date illi tormentum et luctum. |
I answer that, As stated in the FS, Question [87], Article [4], in mortal sin there are two things, namely, a turning from the immutable Good, and an inordinate turning to mutable good. Accordingly, in so far as mortal sin turns away from the immutable Good, it induces a debt of eternal punishment, so that whosoever sins against the eternal Good should be punished eternally. Again, in so far as mortal sin turns inordinately to a mutable good, it gives rise to a debt of some punishment, because the disorder of guilt is not brought back to the order of justice, except by punishment: since it is just that he who has been too indulgent to his will, should suffer something against his will, for thus will equality be restored. Hence it is written (Apoc. 18:7): "As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her." |
| Quia tamen conversio ad bonum commutabile finita est, non habet ex hac parte peccatum mortale quod debeatur ei poena aeterna. Unde, si sit inordinata conversio ad bonum commutabile sine aversione a Deo, sicut est in peccatis venialibus, non debetur peccato poena aeterna, sed temporalis. Quando igitur per gratiam remittitur culpa, tollitur aversio animae a Deo, inquantum per gratiam anima Deo coniungitur. Unde et per consequens simul tollitur reatus poenae aeternae. Potest tamen remanere reatus alicuius poenae temporalis. | Since, however, the turning to mutable good is finite, sin does not, in this respect, induce a debt of eternal punishment. Wherefore, if man turns inordinately to a mutable good, without turning from God, as happens in venial sins, he incurs a debt, not of eternal but of temporal punishment. Consequently when guilt is pardoned through grace, the soul ceases to be turned away from God, through being united to God by grace: so that at the same time, the debt of punishment is taken away, albeit a debt of some temporal punishment may yet remain. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod culpa mortalis utrumque habet, et aversionem a Deo et conversionem ad bonum creatum, sed, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, aversio a Deo est ibi sicut formale, conversio autem ad bonum creatum est ibi sicut materiale. Remoto autem formali cuiuscumque rei, tollitur species, sicut, remoto rationali, tollitur species humana. Et ideo ex hoc ipso dicitur culpa mortalis remitti, quod per gratiam tollitur aversio mentis a Deo, simul cum reatu poenae aeternae. Remanet tamen id quod est materiale, scilicet inordinata conversio ad bonum creatum. Pro qua debetur reatus poenae temporalis. | Reply to Objection 1: Mortal sin both turns away from God and turns to a created good. But, as stated in the FS, Question [71], Article [6], the turning away from God is as its form while the turning to created good is as its matter. Now if the formal element of anything be removed, the species is taken away: thus, if you take away rational, you take away the human species. Consequently mortal sin is said to be pardoned from the very fact that, by means of grace, the aversion of the mind from God is taken away together with the debt of eternal punishment: and yet the material element remains, viz. the inordinate turning to a created good, for which a debt of temporal punishment is due. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, ad gratiam pertinet operari in homine iustificando a peccato, et cooperari homini ad recte operandum. Remissio igitur culpae et reatus poenae aeternae pertinet ad gratiam operantem, sed remissio reatus poenae temporalis pertinet ad gratiam cooperantem, inquantum scilicet homo, cum auxilio divinae gratiae, patienter poenas tolerando, absolvitur etiam a reatu poenae temporalis. Sicut igitur prius est effectus gratiae operantis quam cooperantis, ita etiam prius est remissio culpae et poenae aeternae quam plena absolutio a poena temporali, utrumque enim est a gratia, sed primum a gratia sola, secundum ex gratia et ex libero arbitrio. | Reply to Objection 2: As stated in the FS, Question [109], Articles [7],8; FS, Question [111], Article [2], it belongs to grace to operate in man by justifying him from sin, and to co-operate with man that his work may be rightly done. Consequently the forgiveness of guilt and of the debt of eternal punishment belongs to operating grace, while the remission of the debt of temporal punishment belongs to co-operating grace, in so far as man, by bearing punishment patiently with the help of Divine grace, is released also from the debt of temporal punishment. Consequently just as the effect of operating grace precedes the effect of co-operating grace, so too, the remission of guilt and of eternal punishment precedes the complete release from temporal punishment, since both are from grace, but the former, from grace alone, the latter, from grace and free-will. |
| Ad tertium dicendum est quod passio Christi de se sufficiens est ad tollendum omnem reatum poenae non solum aeternae, sed etiam temporalis, et secundum modum quo homo participat virtutem passionis Christi, percipit etiam absolutionem a reatu poenae. In Baptismo autem homo participat totaliter virtutem passionis Christi, utpote per aquam et spiritum Christo commortuus peccato et in eo regeneratus ad novam vitam. Et ideo in Baptismo homo consequitur remissionem reatus totius poenae. In poenitentia vero consequitur virtutem passionis Christi secundum modum propriorum actuum, qui sunt materia poenitentiae, sicut aqua Baptismi, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non statim per primum actum poenitentiae, quo remittitur culpa, solvitur reatus totius poenae, sed completis omnibus poenitentiae actibus. |
Reply to Objection 3: Christ's Passion is of itself sufficient to remove all debt of punishment, not only eternal, but also temporal; and man is released from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his share in the power of Christ's Passion. Now in Baptism man shares the Power of Christ's Passion fully, since by water and the Spirit of Christ, he dies with Him to sin, and is born again in Him to a new life, so that, in Baptism, man receives the remission of all debt of punishment. In Penance, on the other hand, man shares in the power of Christ's Passion according to the measure of his own acts, which are the matter of Penance, as water is of Baptism, as stated above (Question [84], Articles [1],3). Wherefore the entire debt of punishment is not remitted at once after the first act of Penance, by which act the guilt is remitted, but only when all the acts of Penance have been completed. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 86 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod, remissa culpa mortali, tollantur omnes reliquiae peccati. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de poenitentia, nunquam dominus aliquem sanavit quem omnino non liberavit, totum enim hominem sanavit in sabbato, quia corpus ab omni infirmitate, et animam ab omni contagione. Sed reliquiae peccati pertinent ad infirmitatem peccati. Ergo non videtur possibile quod, remissa culpa, remaneant reliquiae peccati. | Objection 1: It would seem that all the remnants of sin are removed when a mortal sin is forgiven. For Augustine says in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "Our Lord never healed anyone without delivering him wholly; for He wholly healed the man on the Sabbath, since He delivered his body from all disease, and his soul from all taint." Now the remnants of sin belong to the disease of sin. Therefore it does not seem possible for any remnants of sin to remain when the guilt has been pardoned. |
| Praeterea, secundum Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom., bonum est efficacius quam malum, quia malum non agit nisi in virtute boni. Sed homo peccando simul totam infectionem peccati contrahit. Ergo multo magis poenitendo liberatur etiam ab omnibus peccati reliquiis. | Objection 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "good is more efficacious than evil, since evil does not act save in virtue of some good." Now, by sinning, man incurs the taint of sin all at once. Much more, therefore, by repenting, is he delivered also from all remnants of sin. |
| Praeterea, opus Dei est efficacius quam opus hominis. Sed per exercitium humanorum operum ad bonum tolluntur reliquiae peccati contrarii. Ergo multo magis tolluntur per remissionem culpae, quae est opus Dei. | Objection 3: Further, God's work is more efficacious than man's. Now by the exercise of good human works the remnants of contrary sins are removed. Much more, therefore, are they taken away by the remission of guilt, which is a work of God. |
| Sed contra est quod Marci VIII legitur quod caecus illuminatus a domino, primo restitutus est ad imperfectum visum, unde ait, video homines velut arbores ambulare; deinde restitutus est perfecte, ita ut videret clare omnia. Illuminatio autem caeci significat liberationem peccatoris. Post primam ergo remissionem culpae, qua peccator restituitur ad visum spiritualem, adhuc remanent in eo reliquiae aliquae peccati praeteriti. | On the contrary, We read (Mk. 8) that the blind man whom our Lord enlightened, was restored first of all to imperfect sight, wherefore he said (Mk. 8:24): "I see men, as it were trees, walking"; and afterwards he was restored perfectly, "so that he saw all things clearly." Now the enlightenment of the blind man signifies the delivery of the sinner. Therefore after the first remission of sin, whereby the sinner is restored to spiritual sight, there still remain in him some remnants of his past sin. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod peccatum mortale ex parte conversionis inordinatae ad bonum commutabile quandam dispositionem causat in anima; vel etiam habitum, si actus frequenter iteretur. Sicut autem dictum est, culpa mortalis peccati remittitur inquantum tollitur per gratiam aversio mentis a Deo. Sublato autem eo quod est ex parte aversionis, nihilominus remanere potest id quod est ex parte conversionis inordinatae, cum hanc contingat esse sine illa, sicut prius dictum est. Et ideo nihil prohibet quin remissa culpa, remaneant dispositiones ex praecedentibus actibus causatae, quae dicuntur peccati reliquiae. Remanent tamen debilitatae et diminutae, ita quod homini non dominentur. Et hoc magis per modum dispositionum quam per modum habituum, sicut etiam remanet fomes post Baptismum. |
I answer that, Mortal sin, in so far as it turns inordinately to a mutable good, produces in the soul a certain disposition, or even a habit, if the acts be repeated frequently. Now it has been said above (Article [4]) that the guilt of mortal sin is pardoned through grace removing the aversion of the mind from God. Nevertheless when that which is on the part of the aversion has been taken away by grace, that which is on the part of the inordinate turning to a mutable good can remain, since this may happen to be without the other, as stated above (Article [4]). Consequently, there is no reason why, after the guilt has been forgiven, the dispositions caused by preceding acts should not remain, which are called the remnants of sin. Yet they remain weakened and diminished, so as not to domineer over man, and they are after the manner of dispositions rather than of habits, like the "fomes" which remains after Baptism. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus totum hominem perfecte curat, sed quandoque subito, sicut socrum Petri statim restituit perfectae sanitati, ita ut surgens ministraret ei, ut legitur Luc. IV; quandoque autem successive, sicut dictum est de caeco illuminato, Marci VIII. Et ita etiam spiritualiter quandoque tanta commotione convertit cor hominis ut subito perfecte consequatur sanitatem spiritualem, non solum remissa culpa, sed sublatis omnibus peccati reliquiis, ut patet de Magdalena, Luc. VII. Quandoque autem prius remittit culpam per gratiam operantem, et postea per gratiam cooperantem successive tollit peccati reliquias. |
Reply to Objection 1: God heals the whole man perfectly; but sometimes suddenly, as Peter's mother-in-law was restored at once to perfect health, so that "rising she ministered to them" (Lk. 4:39), and sometimes by degrees, as we said above (Question [44], Article [3], ad 2) about the blind man who was restored to sight (Mt. 8). And so too, He sometimes turns the heart of man with such power, that it receives at once perfect spiritual health, not only the guilt being pardoned, but all remnants of sin being removed as was the case with Magdalen (Lk. 7); whereas at other times He sometimes first pardons the guilt by operating grace, and afterwards, by co-operating grace, removes the remnants of sin by degrees. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod peccatum etiam quandoque statim inducit debilem dispositionem, utpote per unum actum causatam, quandoque autem fortiorem, causatam per multos actus. | Reply to Objection 2: Sin too, sometimes induces at once a weak disposition, such as is the result of one act, and sometimes a stronger disposition, the result of many acts. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod uno actu humano non tolluntur omnes reliquiae peccati, quia, ut dicitur in praedicamentis, pravus, ad meliores exercitationes deductus, ad modicum aliquid proficiet, ut melior sit, multiplicato autem exercitio, ad hoc pervenit ut sit bonus virtute acquisita. Hoc autem multo efficacius facit divina gratia, sive uno sive pluribus actibus. | Reply to Objection 3: One human act does not remove all the remnants of sin, because, as stated in the Predicaments (Categor. viii) "a vicious man by doing good works will make but little progress so as to be any better, but if he continue in good practice, he will end in being good as to acquired virtue." But God's grace does this much more effectively, whether by one or by several acts. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 86 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod remissio culpae non sit effectus poenitentiae secundum quod est virtus. Dicitur enim poenitentia virtus secundum quod est principium humani actus. Sed humani actus non operantur ad remissionem culpae, quae est effectus gratiae operantis. Ergo remissio culpae non est effectus poenitentiae secundum quod est virtus. | Objection 1: It would seem that the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect of penance as a virtue. For penance is said to be a virtue, in so far as it is a principle of a human action. But human action does nothing towards the remission of guilt, since this is an effect of operating grace. Therefore the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect of penance as a virtue. |
| Praeterea, quaedam aliae virtutes sunt excellentiores poenitentia. Sed remissio culpae non dicitur effectus alicuius alterius virtutis. Ergo etiam non est effectus poenitentiae secundum quod est virtus. | Objection 2: Further, certain other virtues are more excellent than penance. But the forgiveness of sin is not said to be the effect of any other virtue. Neither, therefore, is it the effect of penance as a virtue. |
| Praeterea, remissio culpae non est nisi ex virtute passionis Christi, secundum illud Heb. IX, sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio. Sed poenitentia inquantum est sacramentum, operatur in virtute passionis Christi, sicut et cetera sacramenta, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo remissio culpae non est effectus poenitentiae inquantum est virtus, sed inquantum est sacramentum. |
Objection 3: Further, there is no forgiveness of sin except through the power of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 9:22: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission." Now Penance, as a sacrament, produces its effect through the power of Christ's Passion, even as the other sacraments do, as was shown above (Question [62], Articles [4],5). Therefore the forgiveness of sin is the effect of Penance, not as a virtue, but as a sacrament. |
| Sed contra, illud est proprie causa alicuius sine quo esse non potest, omnis enim effectus dependet a sua causa. Sed remissio culpae potest esse a Deo sine poenitentiae sacramento, non autem sine poenitentia secundum quod est virtus, ut supra dictum est. Unde et ante sacramenta novae legis poenitentibus Deus peccata remittebat. Ergo remissio culpae est effectus poenitentiae secundum quod est virtus. |
On the contrary, Properly speaking, the cause of a thing is that without which it cannot be, since every defect depends on its cause. Now forgiveness of sin can come from God without the sacrament of Penance, but not without the virtue of penance, as stated above (Question [84], Article [5], ad 3; Question [85], Article [2]); so that, even before the sacraments of the New Law were instituted, God pardoned the sins of the penitent. Therefore the forgiveness of sin is chiefly the effect of penance as a virtue. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod poenitentia est virtus secundum quod est principium quorundam actuum humanorum. Actus autem humani qui sunt ex parte peccatoris, materialiter se habent in sacramento poenitentiae. Omne autem sacramentum producit effectum suum non solum virtute formae, sed etiam virtute materiae, ex utroque enim est unum sacramentum, ut supra habitum est. Unde, sicut remissio culpae fit in Baptismo non solum virtute formae, ex qua et ipsa aqua virtutem recipit; ita etiam remissio culpae est effectus poenitentiae, principalius quidem ex virtute clavium, quam habent ministri, ex quorum parte accipitur id quod est formale in hoc sacramento, ut supra dictum est; secundario autem ex vi actuum poenitentis pertinentium ad virtutem poenitentiae, tamen prout hi actus aliqualiter ordinantur ad claves Ecclesiae. Et sic patet quod remissio culpae est effectus poenitentiae secundum quod est virtus, principalius tamen secundum quod est sacramentum. |
I answer that, Penance is a virtue in so far as it is a principle of certain human acts. Now the human acts, which are performed by the sinner, are the material element in the sacrament of Penance. Moreover every sacrament produces its effect, in virtue not only of its form, but also of its matter. because both these together make the one sacrament, as stated above (Question [60], Article [6], ad 2, Article [7]). Hence in Baptism forgiveness of sin is effected, in virtue not only of the form (but also of the matter, viz. water, albeit chiefly in virtue of the form) [*The words in brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition] from which the water receives its power---and, similarly, the forgiveness of sin is the effect of Penance, chiefly by the power of the keys, which is vested in the ministers, who furnish the formal part of the sacrament, as stated above (Question [84], Article [3]), and secondarily by the instrumentality of those acts of the penitent which pertain to the virtue of penance, but only in so far as such acts are, in some way, subordinate to the keys of the Church. Accordingly it is evident that the forgiveness of sin is the effect of penance as a virtue, but still more of Penance as a sacrament. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod effectus gratiae operantis est iustificatio impii, ut in secunda parte dictum est. In qua, ut ibidem dictum est, non solum est gratiae infusio et remissio culpae, sed etiam motus liberi arbitrii in Deum, qui est actus fidei formatae, et motus liberi arbitrii in peccatum, qui est actus poenitentiae. Hi tamen actus humani sunt ibi ut effectus gratiae operantis simul producti cum remissione culpae. Unde remissio culpae non fit sine actu poenitentiae virtutis, licet sit effectus gratiae operantis. |
Reply to Objection 1: The effect of operating grace is the justification of the ungodly (as stated in the FS, Question [113]), wherein there is, as was there stated (Articles [1],2,3), not only infusion of grace and forgiveness of sin, but also a movement of the free-will towards God, which is an act of faith quickened by charity, and a movement of the free-will against sin, which is the act of penance. Yet these human acts are there as the effects of operating grace, and are produced at the same time as the forgiveness of sin. Consequently the forgiveness of sin does not take place without an act of the virtue of penance, although it is the effect of operating grace. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in iustificatione impii non solum est actus poenitentiae, sed etiam actus fidei, ut dictum est. Et ideo remissio culpae non ponitur effectus solum poenitentiae virtutis, sed principalius fidei et caritatis. | Reply to Objection 2: In the justification of the ungodly there is not only an act of penance, but also an act of faith, as stated above (ad 1: FS, Question [113], Article [4]). Wherefore the forgiveness of sin is accounted the effect not only of the virtue of penance, but also, and that chiefly, of faith and charity. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ad passionem Christi ordinatur actus poenitentiae virtutis et per fidem et per ordinem ad claves Ecclesiae. Et ideo utroque modo causat remissionem culpae virtute passionis Christi. | Reply to Objection 3: The act of the virtue of penance is subordinate to Christ's Passion both by faith, and by its relation to the keys of the Church; and so, in both ways, it causes the forgiveness of sin, by the power of Christ's Passion. |
| Ad id autem quod in contrarium obiicitur, dicendum est quod actus poenitentiae virtutis habet quod sine eo non possit fieri remissio culpae, inquantum est inseparabilis effectus gratiae, per quam principaliter culpa remittitur, quae etiam operatur in omnibus sacramentis. Et ideo per hoc non potest concludi nisi quod gratia est principalior causa remissionis culpae quam poenitentiae sacramentum. Sciendum tamen quod etiam in veteri lege et in lege naturae erat aliqualiter sacramentum poenitentiae, ut supra dictum est. |
To the argument advanced in the contrary sense we reply that the act of the virtue of penance is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, through being an inseparable effect of grace, whereby chiefly is sin pardoned, and which produces its effect in all the sacraments. Consequently it only follows that grace is a higher cause of the forgiveness of sin than the sacrament of Penance. Moreover, it must be observed that, under the Old Law and the law of nature, there was a sacrament of Penance after a fashion, as stated above (Question [84], Article [7], ad 2). |