title: Dist. 17, Part 2, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XVII, Pars II)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XVII, Part II)

source_text:
<!-- page 448 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Quibusdam visum est sufficere, si soli Deo fiat confessio.* Quaeritur ergo, utrum tales fuerint haeretici. Et quod non, videtur: quia Magister recitat hoc tanquam opinionem probabilem. — Sed contra hoc est, quia negans confessionem negat absolutionem, ac per hoc negat clavium virtutem[^p448-1], et ita manifeste est contra Scripturam, et ita contra fidem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si quis esset modo huius opinionis, esset ut haereticus reprobandus, quoniam in Concilio generali hoc determinatum est sub Innocentio tertio[^p448-2]. Sed ante hanc determinationem hoc non erat haeresis, quia ipsi non negabant clavium potestatem, sed negabant necessitatem; bene concedebant, quod utile erat confiteri, et sacerdotes poterant absolvere. Ideo Magister[^p448-3] et Gratianus in Decretis hoc referunt tanquam opinionem; tamen uterque improbat hoc et determinat in contrarium, et si quis pertinaciter assereret contrarium, esset haereticus iudicandus.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quod defendi non potest absolvi potest sive ablui.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia nullum peccatum potest rationabiliter defendi; quare ergo dicit, quod defendi non potest?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod defensionem hic vocat excusationem[^p448-4]; et aliqua sunt peccata, quae sunt possibilia defendi, quia possunt excusari, et hoc ipso digna sunt venia; peccata vero, quae non possunt excusari de se, possunt habere ablutionem et absolutionem merito lacrymarum. Vult ergo dicere, quod non est aliquod peccatum tam grave, quod per lacrymas non fiat excusabile; nec aliquod ita pudorosum, quin verus dolor contritionis faciat confiteri. Et fletus et lacrymatio «consulit veniae»[^p448-5], dum impetrat veniam; «et verecundiae», dum reddit peccatorem excusabilem, vel facit eum verecundiam vincere, ob quam non audebat confiteri. Et ita Ambrosius non intendit excludere confessionem,

<!-- page 449 -->

sed persuadere veram contritionem. Et sic patet intellectus auctoritatis et continuatio litterae[^p448-6].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non dico, quod confitearis conservo tuo, ut tibi ea exprobret.* Secundum enim hoc videtur, quod cum omnis homo sit conservus, quod nulli possit peccatum revelari. — Praeterea, sigillum confessionis est arctissimum: ergo non debet timere, ut sibi exprobrentur[^p448-7].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dupliciter confitetur aliquis peccatum suum alicui: aut sicut homini, et hoc per quandam confabulationem; aut sicut Deo, et hoc per conscientiae revelationem, ut loquatur homini sicut Deo. Primo modo peccatum confiteri est confiteri conservo, quia confitetur homini ut homini; et ideo potest sibi exprobrare, quia ad sigillum confessionis non tenetur. Alio modo, quia confitetur homini ut Deo, et tunc non confitetur ut conservo, sed Deo; et quia homo non novit illud ut homo, non potest illud dicere, sed tenetur tacere; et tunc non est timendum, quod exprobret. Si autem aliquis confessiones revelaret, indignus esset honore sacerdotali; et rationabiliter confessio posset fieri alii, et ipse vitari, et hoc auctoritate superioris[^p448-8].

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nescientibus aliis, ipsi in se voluntariae excommunicationis sententiam ferunt.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia nullus potest se ipsum excommunicare. — Item, quantumcumque aliquis se puniat, nisi per iudicium sacerdotis non potest reconciliari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum est, quod loquitur de notitia, qua quis novit ut homo. Aliquis tamen novit ut Deus, ad cuius arbitrium homo dicitur[^p448-9] ferre in se excommunicationis sententiam, quando ab aliquo se arcet propria voluntate, a quo arcetur excommunicatus invitus, utpote a locis sacratis et participatione eucharistiae. — Et si tu obiicias, quod nemo debet se privare illo Sacramento, cum sit medicina; dicendum, quod dilatio medicinae, ut melior fiat praeparatio, potius est promotio quam retractio a bono. Ad illud autem Sacramentum maxime praeparatur homo per desiderium et per reverentiam; et quando aliquamdiu[^p449-1] se retrahit, tunc desiderabilius sumit et reverentius accedit, maxime ille qui a peccato resurgit; et ideo hoc dicit.

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ut indulgentiam Dei nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequeant obtinere.* Videtur enim ex hoc, quod absolutio sacerdotis per modum supplicandi sive deprecandi debeat fieri: non ergo per modum indicativum. Sed contra hoc est, quod omnium Sacramentorum forma est[^p449-2] per modum indicativum: ergo et huius Sacramenti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud Sacramentum est contra actuale peccatum, ad cuius curationem concurrit actus voluntarius. Unde licet Sacramentum de se habeat virtutem, potest tamen impediri per pravam dispositionem existentem, et illam pravam dispositionem solus Deus amovet; et ideo congruum est, ut forma verborum sub utroque[^p449-3] exprimatur; et sic est. Nam sacerdos primo absolutionem dat per modum deprecativum, dicens: *Indulgentiam tribuat* etc., et post: *Et ego absolvo te*[^p449-4].

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Docens, corporali praesentia confitenda peccata, non per scriptum manifestanda.* Videtur enim ex hoc, quod qui ignorat linguam, non possit confiteri per interpretem; et etiam, quod mutus confiteri non possit, cum non possit ore dicere. — Item quaeritur, utrum interpres teneatur celare. Et videtur, quod sic, quia communicat in actu sacerdoti[^p449-5]. In contrarium est, quod peccator ei non confitetur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Augustinus[^p449-6] loquitur de illis qui habent idioma et potentiam confitendi; qui non excusantur, immo tenentur proprio ore dicere propter meritum erubescentiae. — Quod obiicitur de interprete, dicendum, quod obligandus est per sacerdotem; et si non obligat, tamen tenetur, quia est auris sacerdotis. Unde communicat cum utroque[^p449-7].

### Dub. VII

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Fit veniale quod commisit mortale.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia species rerum non possunt transmutari[^p449-8]: ergo nec peccata.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod mortale fieri veniale est dupliciter: aut quantum ad maculam et deformitatem, aut quantum ad reatum. Si quantum ad maculam, hoc est impossibile; si quantum ad reatum, hoc potest intelligi dupliciter: vel quod iste fiat ille, et hoc nunquam fit; vel quia ille succedit huic, et hoc verum est, quia aliquis prius obligatur ad mortem aeternam et post per divinam misericordiam ad poenam temporalem[^p449-9]. — Vel distinguitur, quod veniale dicitur tribus modis: ex genere, ut mendacium iocosum; ex eventu, propter effectum divinae misericordiae; ex circumstantia, ut illud quod habet excusationem. Primo modo mortale non fit veniale, sed secundo modo[^p449-10].

### Dub. VIII

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quanto pluribus confitetur in spe veniae turpitudinem criminis* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut secundus sacerdos aliquid remittit, aut nihil. Si aliquid, similiter et tertius, et sic totum possunt remittere: ergo sine satisfactione per solam confessionem potest quis salvari; quod est inconveniens. Si[^p449-11] nihil remittit: ergo non consequitur veniam facilius. — Item, si prima confessio est Sacramentum perfectum, ergo si superaddit, videtur totum superfluum: ergo non consequitur veniam. — Item, quilibet sacerdos debet imponere poenitentiam; et tunc videtur, quod aut tenetur ad omnes, aut ad nullam. Si ad omnes, tunc difficilius consequitur veniam; si ad nullam, videtur, quod una confessio irritet aliam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod confessio ordinatur ad multa, sed ad unum principaliter[^p449-12], et quantum ad principale aequivalet confiteri multis ut uni; quia unus sacerdos tantum dimittit de poena, quantum potest vi clavium. Nec debet iterari con-

<!-- page 450 -->

fessio propter finem principalem, nisi forte timeatur error fuisse in confessione. — Praeterea, aliae sunt utilitates annexae, et ad illas valet multoties confiteri, scilicet ad erubescentiam et intercessorum multiplicationem et ad humiliationem et gratiae augmentum. Ad principalem effectum valet quantum ad certificationem[^p450-1].

Ex his patent obiecta, quia secundus non facit novam remissionem nec debet de novo ligare, sed aliquid facile imponere, ut *Pater noster* etc.; et semper potest poenitens esse certior, quia, si non habuit effectum prima, potest esse, quod secunda habeat, quia melius invenit dispositum. — Et ex hoc patet ultimum[^p450-2].

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: *To some it seemed to suffice if confession be made to God alone.* It is asked therefore whether such men were heretics. And that they were not, it seems: because the Master recounts this as a probable opinion. — But against this is that he who denies confession denies absolution, and through this denies the power of the keys[^p448-1], and thus is manifestly against Scripture, and thus against the faith.

**I respond:** It must be said that if anyone were now of this opinion, he would be reprobated as a heretic, since in a general Council this was determined under Innocent the Third[^p448-2]. But before this determination this was not heresy, because they did not deny the power of the keys, but denied [its] necessity; they freely conceded that it was useful to confess, and that priests could absolve. Therefore the Master[^p448-3] and Gratian in the Decrees report this as an opinion; yet each disapproves it and determines to the contrary, and if anyone were pertinaciously to assert the contrary, he would have to be judged a heretic.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *That which cannot be defended can be absolved or washed away.* For it seems to be said badly, because no sin can be reasonably defended; why therefore does he say that it cannot be defended?

**I respond:** It must be said that he here calls "defense" excuse[^p448-4]; and there are some sins which it is possible to defend, because they can be excused, and by this very fact are worthy of pardon; but sins which cannot be excused of themselves can have washing-away and absolution by the merit of tears. He means therefore to say that there is no sin so grave that it does not become excusable through tears; nor any so shameful but that true sorrow of contrition makes [one] confess [it]. And weeping and lamentation «is advisable for pardon»[^p448-5], while it obtains pardon; «and for shame», while it renders the sinner excusable, or makes him overcome the shame on account of which he did not dare to confess. And so Ambrose does not intend to exclude confession,

<!-- page 449 -->

but to persuade [to] true contrition. And thus the sense of the authority and the continuation of the text is plain[^p448-6].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *I do not say that you should confess to your fellow-servant, so that he may reproach you with them.* For according to this it seems that, since every man is a fellow-servant, a sin could be revealed to no one. — Moreover, the seal of confession is most strict: therefore one ought not to fear that they be reproached against him[^p448-7].

**I respond:** It must be said that one confesses his sin to another in two ways: either as to a man, and this by a certain conversation; or as to God, and this by the revelation of conscience, so as to speak to the man as to God. In the first way to confess a sin is to confess to a fellow-servant, because he confesses to the man as to a man; and therefore he can reproach him, because he is not bound to the seal of confession. In the other way, because he confesses to the man as to God, and then he does not confess as to a fellow-servant, but to God; and because the man does not know it as a man, he cannot tell it, but is bound to be silent; and then there is nothing to fear, that he should reproach. But if anyone were to reveal confessions, he would be unworthy of priestly honor; and reasonably confession could be made to another, and he himself avoided, and this by the authority of a superior[^p448-8].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Without others knowing, they bear against themselves the sentence of a voluntary excommunication.* For it seems to be said badly, because no one can excommunicate himself. — Likewise, however much one punishes himself, he cannot be reconciled except through the judgment of a priest.

**I respond:** It must be said that he speaks of the knowledge by which one knows as a man. Yet someone knows as God, at whose judgment a man is said[^p448-9] to bear against himself the sentence of excommunication, when he debars himself from someone by his own will, from whom the excommunicate is debarred unwilling, namely from holy places and the participation of the Eucharist. — And if you object that no one ought to deprive himself of that Sacrament, since it is a medicine; it must be said that the deferring of the medicine, that a better preparation may be made, is rather a promotion than a withdrawal from the good. Now for that Sacrament a man is most prepared through desire and through reverence; and when he withdraws himself for some time[^p449-1], then he takes [it] more desirously and approaches more reverently, especially he who rises from sin; and therefore he says this.

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *That they cannot obtain the indulgence of God except by the supplications of priests.* For it seems from this that the absolution of the priest ought to be done by way of supplicating or of beseeching: therefore not by way of the indicative. But against this is that the form of all the Sacraments is[^p449-2] by way of the indicative: therefore [the form] of this Sacrament also.

**I respond:** It must be said that that Sacrament is against actual sin, to whose cure a voluntary act concurs. Whence although the Sacrament has power of itself, it can nevertheless be impeded by an existing evil disposition, and that evil disposition God alone removes; and therefore it is fitting that the form of the words be expressed under both[^p449-3]; and so it is. For the priest first gives absolution by way of beseeching, saying: *May He grant indulgence* etc., and afterward: *And I absolve you*[^p449-4].

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Teaching that sins are to be confessed by bodily presence, not to be manifested by writing.* For it seems from this that he who does not know the language cannot confess through an interpreter; and also, that a mute cannot confess, since he cannot speak with the mouth. — Likewise it is asked whether the interpreter is bound to conceal [it]. And it seems that he is, because he shares in the act with the priest[^p449-5]. On the contrary is that the sinner does not confess to him.

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine[^p449-6] speaks of those who have the language and the capacity of confessing; who are not excused, but rather are bound to speak with their own mouth on account of the merit of shame. — As to what is objected concerning the interpreter, it must be said that he is to be bound [to silence] by the priest; and if he does not bind [him], yet [the interpreter] is bound, because he is the ear of the priest. Whence he shares with both[^p449-7].

### Doubt VII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *That becomes venial which he committed [as] mortal.* For it seems to say [something] false, because the species of things cannot be transmuted[^p449-8]: therefore neither [can] sins.

**I respond:** It must be said that for a mortal [sin] to become venial is twofold: either as to the stain and deformity, or as to the guilt. If as to the stain, this is impossible; if as to the guilt, this can be understood in two ways: either that this [sin] becomes that [one], and this never happens; or that the one succeeds the other, and this is true, because someone is first obliged to eternal death and afterward, through the divine mercy, to a temporal penalty[^p449-9]. — Or it is distinguished, that "venial" is said in three ways: by genus, as a jesting lie; by event, on account of the effect of the divine mercy; by circumstance, as that which has an excuse. In the first way a mortal [sin] does not become venial, but in the second way[^p449-10].

### Doubt VIII

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *The more [priests] he confesses to in hope of pardon the foulness of his crime* etc. For it seems to be said badly, because either the second priest remits something, or nothing. If something, likewise also the third, and thus they can remit the whole: therefore without satisfaction by confession alone one can be saved; which is unfitting. If[^p449-11] he remits nothing: therefore he does not obtain pardon more easily. — Likewise, if the first confession is a perfect Sacrament, then if he adds more, the whole seems superfluous: therefore he does not obtain pardon. — Likewise, every priest ought to impose penance; and then it seems that either he is bound to [impose] all [penances], or to [impose] none. If to all, then he obtains pardon more difficultly; if to none, it seems that one confession nullifies the other.

**I respond:** It must be said that confession is ordered to many things, but to one principally[^p449-12], and as to the principal [end] it is equivalent to confess to many as to one; because one priest remits as much of the penalty as he can by the power of the keys. Nor ought confession to be repeated

<!-- page 450 -->

on account of the principal end, unless perhaps it be feared that there was an error in the confession. — Moreover, there are other annexed utilities, and for these it is profitable to confess many times, namely for shame and the multiplication of intercessors and for humiliation and the increase of grace. For the principal effect it is profitable as to certification[^p450-1].

From these the objections are plain, because the second [priest] does not make a new remission nor ought he to bind anew, but to impose something easy, as the *Our Father* etc.; and the penitent can always be more certain, because, if the first [confession] did not have its effect, it can be that the second has [it], because it finds [him] better disposed. — And from this the last [objection] is plain[^p450-2].

la: Cfr. infra d. 18. p. I. a. 4. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. below, d. 18, p. I, a. 4, q. 1 ff.

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. 1. fundam. 1. et in corp.

en: See above, a. 2, q. 1, foundation 1, and in the body.

la: Hic c. 2. Gratian., de Poenitentia, d. 1. per totam. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Here c. 2. Gratian, *On Penitence*, d. 1, throughout. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Multi codd. perperam omittunt *non*. Edd. legunt: *venia, sicut peccata naturae, quae possunt excusari de se; et aliqua sunt peccata, quae non possunt excusari de se, sed possunt* etc.

en: Many codices wrongly omit *non*. The editions read: *pardon, just as sins of nature, which can be excused of themselves; and there are some sins which cannot be excused of themselves, but can* etc.

la: Ut dicit Ambros. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2, allegatus (post verba huius dubii). — Edd. falso *sceleri* et superius *ponderosum* pro *pudorosum*.

en: As Ambrose says, here in the text of the Master, c. 2, cited (after the words of this doubt). — The editions wrongly [read] *sceleri* and above *ponderosum* for *pudorosum*.

la: In edd. desideratur *et continuatio litterae*. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 33.

en: In the editions *and the continuation of the text* is wanting. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 33.

la: Cod. O supplet *peccata*, edd. substituunt *exprobretur*. Superius codd. omittunt *peccatum*. — De obligatione sigilli, qua tenetur confessarius, vide infra d. 21. p. II. n. 2. totum.

en: Codex O supplies *peccata*, the editions substitute *exprobretur*. Above, the codices omit *peccatum*. — Concerning the obligation of the seal, by which the confessor is bound, see below, d. 21, p. II, n. 2, the whole.

la: Cfr. infra d. 21. p. II. a. 2. q. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 33; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. below, d. 21, p. II, a. 2, q. 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 33; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Codd. K aa *tenetur*. Superius pro *se puniat* edd. *poeniteat*. Inferius pro *invitus* cod. H *invite*.

en: Codices K aa [read] *tenetur*. Above, for *se puniat* the editions [read] *poeniteat*. Below, for *invitus* codex H [reads] *invite*.

la: Edd. *et quanto diutius aliquando*, et mox *tanto* pro *tunc*. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 38; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The editions [read] *and the longer at times*, and shortly *so much* for *then*. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 38; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Codd. GH *fit*.

en: Codices GH [read] *fit*.

la: Cod. K (1a secunda manu) supplet *modo*. Mox post *et sic est* edd. addunt *fieri congruum et consuetum*.

en: Codex K (by a second hand) supplies *modo*. Shortly, after *and so it is* the editions add *to be done [as] fitting and customary*.

la: De hoc dub. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit., vide autem infra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.; ibid. in scholio alii auctores de hoc tractantes allegantur.

en: On this doubt [see] Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text, but see below, d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, in the body; in the same place, in the scholion, other authors treating of this are cited.

la: Cod. H *sacerdotii*.

en: Codex H [reads] *sacerdotii*.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2, ex quo est textus huius dubii. — Inferius pro *qui* [edd. *quod*] *non excusantur, tenentur*, quod habet cod. A, alii *vel non* [codd. IKP *et talis non*] *vel nec excusatur... tenetur*.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 2, from which is the text of this doubt. — Below, for *who* [editions *which*] *are not excused, are bound*, which codex A has, others [read] *or not* [codices IKP *and such a one not*] *or neither is excused... is bound*.

la: Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 5. § 9; B. Albert., hic a. 54; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 4. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 6. quaestiunc. 2.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 18, m. 4, a. 5, § 9; Blessed Albert, here a. 54; St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 4, sub-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 6, sub-question 2.

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Metaph. text. 10. (VII. c. 3.), ubi essentiam rei comparat numero, qui, addita unitate vel sublata, non manet idem numerus, sed erit diversus specie.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* VIII, text 10 (VII, c. 3), where he compares the essence of a thing to a number, which, by a unit added or taken away, does not remain the same number, but will be diverse in species.

la: Vide supra d. 13. p. I. q. I. in corp.

en: See above, d. 13, p. I, q. I, in the body.

la: Cfr. supra d. 16. p. II. a. 3. q. I. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 33; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit. Ultimus dicit: *Fit veniale per confessionem*, id est dignum venia.

en: Cf. above, d. 16, p. II, a. 3, q. I. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 33; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. The last says: *It becomes venial through confession*, that is, worthy of pardon.

la: Plures codd. addunt *ergo*, edd. *vero*.

en: Several codices add *ergo*, the editions *vero*.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. I. in fine.

en: See above, a. 1, q. I, at the end.

la: Codd. IK *testificationem*.

en: Codices IK [read] *testificationem*.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV two-column PDF bands `vol4-p448..p450-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (split x=1880), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR raw lines 50267–50454 (the OCR is cascade-shattered in the two-column footers, so the PDF bands are authoritative per the Vol II/IV override). Running head "DIST. XVII. P. II. DUBIA. 449" on p.449 confirms the page identity and pars. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 448–450 → PDF 468–470).

**Structure.** 8 dubia (Dub. I–VIII), each a *quaeritur … Respondeo* unit keyed to a phrase of Lombard's text. The chunk ends at the close of Dub. VIII on p.450 ("Et ex hoc patet ultimum") immediately before the centered **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVII. / Pars III. — De confessione sacramentali facienda** (which references "TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 416"). That commentary is the **hand-off to the Pars III chunk** (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p3-*`): its DIVISIO TEXTUS, TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, and Articulus I / Quaestio I begin in the right column of p.450 and continue beyond. **p.450 footers 3–6 belong to that Pars III commentary, NOT to this dubia chunk** — only p.450 footers 1–2 (rendered here) attach to the Dub. VIII close.

**Footnote numbering.** Quaracchi restarts per printed page: p.448 = footers 1–9; p.449 = footers 1–12; p.450 = footers 1–2 (dubia portion only). Markers are placed at OCR/printed positions. Apparatus total: 23 entries.

**Marginal glosses omitted.** The printed margins carry Quaracchi editorial side-notes ("Notandum.", "Distinctio.", "Subdistinctio.", "Aliter.", "Triplex veniale.", "Ad oppositum.") that are not part of Bonaventure's text; they are not transcribed into the body per the marginalia rule.

**[?] flags.** None. All eight dubia and all 23 apparatus entries read cleanly off the PDF bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 17, Part 3, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XVII, Pars III)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XVII, Part III)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 463 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Si tamen desit sacerdos, proximo vel socio facienda est confessio.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia laicus vel socius non potest absolvere: ergo nec locum sacerdotis supplere.

**Respondeo:** Non fit socio, ut suppleatur locus sacerdotis, vel confessio-Sacramentum ex hoc habeatur; sed ut voluntas confitentis probetur et innotescat, ut totum, quod in se est, faciat. — Dixerunt tamen aliqui, quod aliquo modo absolvitur iste in ista confessione. Dicunt enim[^1], quod quinque modis habetur potestas absolvendi, scilicet *auctoritate*, et sic est Dei; *excellentia*, et sic est Christi hominis; *potestate sive auctoritate commissa*, et sic est sacerdotis; *merito vitae*, et sic est iusti et sancti; et *virtute unitatis ecclesiasticae*, et sic est cuiuslibet viri fidelis. Et ideo dicunt, quod talis confessio quodam modo est Sacramentum Ecclesiae. — Probabilius tamen est dicere, quod non sit Sacramentum Ecclesiae, cum deficiat[^2] ibi *formale*, scilicet potestas clavis, sed est aliquid loco eius.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Qui confitetur sacerdoti meliori quam potest confiteatur.* Videtur enim secundum hoc, quod si sacerdos suus non est optimus, quod possit eum deserere, quod est contra canones[^3].

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ipse loquitur de homine qui est in sua libertate, antequam committat se alicui sacerdoti, quod debet eligere quanto meliorem potest. — Si autem post electionem intelligatur; hoc est intelligendum cum licentia sui sacerdotis, vel ita, quod primum satisfaciat proprio sacerdoti, ut nullo modo contemnatur sacerdotis auctoritas et ministerium.

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quaerendus est sacerdos sapiens et discretus*; quare hoc debeat fieri. Nam cum simplex sacerdos ita bonam Missam cantet, sicut et sapiens, et ita bene baptizet: ergo videtur, quod ita bene absolvat. — Quaeritur etiam, utrum simplex sacerdos peccet in absolvendo, vel etiam in audiendo confessiones. Et quod sic, videtur per illud quod ante praedixit[^4]: «Talem oportet esse, qui aliorum crimina iudicat». Item, qui intromittit se facere quod nescit, usurpat alienum; et omnis talis peccat mortaliter sive graviter: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sive scientia sit clavis, sive non[^5], tamen necessaria est sacerdoti tanta scientia, quod sciat discernere in peccatis communibus, et quod sit veniale, et quod mortale; et quod sciat semper, ad quae peccata potestas sua potest se extendere; et hoc, quia alia poenitentia danda est pro veniali, alia pro mortali; et si ad aliquod genus peccati non potest extendere manum[^6], illud necessarium est ei cognoscere, alioquin in periculum animae suae et confitentium audit confessiones. Et si subditi cognoscunt eius simplicitatem, tenentur discretos consulere, alioquin utrique peccant graviter. Et de hac discretione loquitur Augustinus[^7]. — Alia est discretio, qua sciat per habitum acquisitum discernere inter perplexitates peccatorum, et haec est de bene esse; in talibus autem debet securiorem viam semper eligere et sapientes consulere.

<!-- page 464 -->

Ad illud quod obiicitur de Missa, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia ibi est vis in verbis a Domino statutis, hic autem requiritur, ut consulat et iudicet secundum conscientiam, quae est in ipso. Quod quaeritur, utrum peccet; dicendum, quod carens discretione necessaria peccat ipse, et qui eum sustinet; de alia non credo.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Nec necesse est, ut quod sacerdoti semel confessi sumus iterum confiteamur.*[^8] Ex hac enim littera videtur, quod peccata, quae semel homo confessus est, non debeat iterum confiteri, sive non sit necesse. Et illud videtur per rationem: quia in eodem foro non debet quis bis puniri[^9]: si ergo quis pro peccato commisso semel punitus est, videtur etc. — Item, certum est, quod peccata nunquam redeunt secundum veritatem[^10]: ergo si semel absolutus est, nunquam ligatur iterum: ergo nunquam tenetur iterum eadem confiteri. — *Contra* ponatur, quod quis ficte confiteatur: constans est, quod talis non reportat commodum, immo damnum de confessione[^11]. Si ergo nihil remanet in eo de confessione, quia characterem non imprimit; ergo tenetur iterum confiteri. — Item, ponatur, quod aliquis rememoretur peccati mortalis, quod oblitus fuit confiteri; constans est, quod non est confessus integre pro statu, in quo nunc est; sed confessio, quae non est integra, sicut infra[^12] videbitur, pro nulla reputanda est: ergo tenetur iterum totum confiteri, ac si nunquam fuisset confessus. — Item, ponatur, quod aliquis recidivet; constans est, quod peccatum sequens ex praecedentibus aggravatur tum propter ingratitudinem, tum propter consuetudinem[^13]: ergo non potest sciri quantitas peccati nec qualitas confitentis, nisi sciatur totum: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si confessio legitime facta est, et ea quae ad ipsam pertinent servata; non oportet iterum confiteri quae alias sumus confessi. Sed quia contingit, quod confessio, vel quando primo facta est, irrita fuit, vel postmodum irritatur; ideo oportet aliquando iterari.

Sunt autem quatuor casus communes et usitati, in quibus doctores dixerunt, confessionem esse iterandam. Primus est propter *enormitatem sceleris*, ob quam oportet peccatorem ad superiorem remitti, qui confessionem remissi audire debet et absolvere, nisi malit alteri committere. — Secundus est propter *ignorantiam sacerdotis*, utpote quando sacerdos ignarus est; quaerendus enim est tunc sacerdos, qui sciat ligare et solvere, et ei iterum est confitendum vel ex licentia sacerdotis proprii, vel auctoritate superioris[^14]. — Tertius casus est propter *malitiam fictionis*, ut si scienter aliquod peccatum in corde retinuit, vel si accessit cum voluntate peccandi. — Quartus est propter *contemptum satisfactionis*, ut quando negligit et contemnit facere poenitentiam sibi iniunctam. Et intelligantur isti duo ultimi casus, quando mutat sacerdotem. Si enim ad eundem revertitur, tunc distinguendum: quia aut recenter confessus est, aut iam de memoria sunt elapsa ab ipso sacerdote propter diuturnitatem temporis. In primo casu non tenetur, in secundo tenetur. — In his casibus communiter concordant omnes confessionem iterandam esse.

Sunt et alii duo casus[^15], in quibus doctores sibi adversantur. Aliqui enim dicunt, quod tenetur etiam homo iterare confessionem propter *peccati obliti recordationem*, et propter *recidivationem*, quoniam aliter confessio integra non est; et confessionem oportet habere integritatem ad hoc, ut habeat utilitatem, sicut melius patebit infra[^16]. — Alii dicunt, quod sufficit, in generali dicere, se alias peccasse et hoc de novo peccatum commisisse, vel recordatum esse in speciali, quoniam prior confessio valuit et bona fuit. — Alii dicunt, quod peccata eiusdem generis tenetur referre in speciali, sed alia in generali; et sic scitur et consuetudo et ingratitudo. — Sed quid super his sit sentiendum, melius patebit in distinctione vigesima prima[^17]; ad praesens autem tantum dixisse sufficit.

Quodsi igitur velis praecise scire, quid sit necessarium in iteratione confessionis; dicendum, quod aut est propter defectum ex parte *sacerdotis*; et hoc non est nisi dupliciter: aut quia *nescit* absolvere, aut quia non *potest*; et sic sunt duo. — Aut propter defectum ex parte *poenitentis*, et hoc dupliciter: aut quia contemnit sacerdotis *absolutionem*, aut quia contemnit *ligationem*. — In duobus aliis casibus, credo, quod confiteri iterum eadem sit consilium, et hoc in *speciali*; nisi interveniat aliquis praedictorum, utpote ignorantia sacerdotis, quia non recte ligavit, vel contemptus suae ligationis; aliter non credo iterum teneri, nisi conscientia liget. Et hoc melius patebit infra[^18], cum agetur de confessionis dimidiatione.

<!-- page 465 -->

Ex his satis patent obiecta et melius patebunt infra distinctione vigesima prima[^19]. Rationes enim, quae ostendunt, confessionem non esse iterandam, procedunt de illa confessione, qua quis est legitime confessus et absolutus, sicut patet, quia aliter non concludunt. Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt de confessione, circa quam fuit aliquis defectus, vel a parte *absolventis*, vel a parte *absoluti*, qui potest esse conditionis necessariae; et tunc oportet iterum confiteri, vel totum, vel partem, secundum qualitatem defectus. Si vero sit defectus conditionis expedientis et congruae; tunc iteratio est de congruitate, non de necessitate, ut quando intervenit oblivio, vel etiam recidivatio. Et sic patet illud totum.

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: *If, however, a priest be lacking, confession is to be made to a neighbor or a companion.* For it seems to be said badly, because a layman or a companion cannot absolve: therefore neither [can he] supply the place of a priest.

**I respond:** It is not made to a companion in order that the place of a priest be supplied, or that the confession be had as a Sacrament from this; but in order that the will of the one confessing be tested and made manifest, so that he may do all that is in him. — Yet some have said that this one is in some manner absolved in this confession. For they say[^1] that the power of absolving is had in five ways, namely by *authority*, and thus it is God's; by *excellence*, and thus it is that of Christ as man; by *power or authority committed*, and thus it is the priest's; by *the merit of life*, and thus it is that of the just and holy man; and by *the virtue of ecclesiastical unity*, and thus it is that of any faithful man. And therefore they say that such a confession is in some manner a Sacrament of the Church. — Yet it is more probable to say that it is not a Sacrament of the Church, since the *formal element*[^2] is lacking there, namely the power of the key, but it is something in place of it.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Let him who confesses to a priest confess to a better one than he is able to.* For according to this it seems that, if his own priest is not the best, he may desert him, which is against the canons[^3].

**I respond:** It must be said that he is speaking of a man who is in his liberty, before he commits himself to some priest, that he ought to choose the best he can. — But if it be understood after the choice; this is to be understood with the leave of his own priest, or in such a way that he first make satisfaction to his own priest, so that in no way be the authority and ministry of the priest contemned.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *A wise and discreet priest is to be sought*; why this ought to be done. For since a simple priest sings as good a Mass as a wise one, and likewise baptizes as well: therefore it seems that he absolves as well. — It is also asked whether a simple priest sins in absolving, or even in hearing confessions. And that he does, seems [to follow] from that which he said before[^4]: «Such ought he to be who judges the crimes of others». Likewise, he who undertakes to do what he does not know usurps another's [office]; and every such one sins mortally or gravely: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that, whether knowledge be a key or not[^5], nevertheless so much knowledge is necessary to a priest, that he know how to discern in common sins, both what is venial and what is mortal; and that he always know to what sins his power can extend itself; and this, because one penance is to be given for a venial [sin], another for a mortal one; and if to some kind of sin he cannot extend his hand[^6], that is necessary for him to know, otherwise he hears confessions to the peril of his own soul and of those confessing. And if the subjects know his simplicity, they are bound to consult discreet ones, otherwise both sin gravely. And of this discretion Augustine speaks[^7]. — There is another discretion, by which he may know, through an acquired habit, how to discern among the perplexities of sins, and this is of well-being; but in such matters he ought always to choose the safer way and to consult the wise.

<!-- page 464 -->

To that which is objected concerning the Mass, it must be said that it is not similar: because there the force is in the words appointed by the Lord, but here it is required that he consult and judge according to the conscience which is in himself. As to what is asked, whether he sins; it must be said that he who lacks the necessary discretion himself sins, and [so does] he who supports him; concerning the other [discretion] I do not believe [so].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Nor is it necessary that what we have once confessed to a priest we confess again.*[^8] For from this text it seems that the sins which a man has once confessed he ought not to confess again, or that it is not necessary. And this seems [to follow] by reason: because in the same forum one ought not to be punished twice[^9]: if therefore one has once been punished for a committed sin, it seems etc. — Likewise, it is certain that sins never return according to truth[^10]: therefore if he has once been absolved, he is never bound again: therefore he is never bound to confess the same again. — *On the contrary*, let it be supposed that one confess feignedly: it is established that such a one carries off no advantage, but rather harm from the confession[^11]. If therefore nothing remains in him from the confession, because it does not imprint a character; therefore he is bound to confess again. — Likewise, let it be supposed that someone recalls a mortal sin which he forgot to confess; it is established that he has not confessed completely for the state in which he now is; but a confession which is not complete, as will be seen below[^12], is to be reckoned as nothing: therefore he is bound to confess the whole again, as if he had never confessed. — Likewise, let it be supposed that someone relapses; it is established that the subsequent sin is aggravated by the preceding ones, both on account of ingratitude and on account of habit[^13]: therefore the quantity of the sin and the quality of the one confessing cannot be known unless the whole is known: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that if the confession was made legitimately, and the things which pertain to it were observed; it is not necessary to confess again the things we have confessed elsewhere. But because it happens that a confession was either invalid when first made, or is afterward made invalid; therefore it is sometimes necessary to repeat [it].

Now there are four common and customary cases in which the doctors have said that confession is to be repeated. The first is on account of the *enormity of the crime*, on account of which the sinner must be remitted to a superior, who ought to hear and absolve the confession of the one remitted, unless he prefer to commit [it] to another. — The second is on account of the *ignorance of the priest*, as when the priest is unlearned; for then a priest is to be sought who knows how to bind and to loose, and to him it must be confessed again, either by leave of one's own priest, or by the authority of a superior[^14]. — The third case is on account of the *malice of feigning*, as if he knowingly retained some sin in his heart, or if he approached with the will of sinning. — The fourth is on account of the *contempt of satisfaction*, as when he neglects and contemns to do the penance enjoined on him. And let these last two cases be understood [of the situation] when he changes priest. For if he returns to the same one, then a distinction must be made: because either he confessed recently, or [the sins] have already slipped from the memory of that priest on account of the length of time. In the first case he is not bound, in the second he is bound. — In these cases all commonly agree that confession is to be repeated.

There are also two other cases[^15] in which the doctors are at variance with one another. For some say that a man is bound also to repeat his confession on account of *the recollection of a forgotten sin*, and on account of *relapse*, because otherwise the confession is not complete; and the confession must have completeness in order that it have usefulness, as will better appear below[^16]. — Others say that it suffices to say in general that one has sinned at other times and has committed this sin anew, or has recalled [it] in particular, because the prior confession was valid and good. — Others say that he is bound to relate sins of the same kind in particular, but others in general; and thus both the habit and the ingratitude are known. — But what is to be held about these things will better appear in the twenty-first distinction[^17]; for the present it suffices to have said only this much.

But if therefore you wish precisely to know what is necessary in the repetition of confession; it must be said that it is either on account of a defect on the part of the *priest*; and this is only in two ways: either because he *knows not* how to absolve, or because he is *unable*; and thus there are two. — Or on account of a defect on the part of the *penitent*, and this in two ways: either because he contemns the priest's *absolution*, or because he contemns the *binding*. — In the two other cases, I believe that to confess the same again is a counsel, and this in *particular*; unless one of the aforesaid intervene, such as the ignorance of the priest, because he did not bind rightly, or the contempt of his binding; otherwise I do not believe one is bound again, unless conscience binds. And this will better appear below[^18], when treatment is made of the halving of confession.

<!-- page 465 -->

From these things the objections are sufficiently plain, and will better appear below in the twenty-first distinction[^19]. For the reasons which show that confession is not to be repeated proceed concerning that confession by which one has been legitimately confessed and absolved, as is plain, because otherwise they do not conclude. But the reasons to the opposite proceed concerning a confession about which there was some defect, either on the part of the one *absolving*, or on the part of the one *absolved*, which can be of a necessary condition; and then it is necessary to confess again, either the whole, or a part, according to the quality of the defect. But if there be a defect of an expedient and congruous condition; then the repetition is of congruity, not of necessity, as when forgetfulness, or even relapse, intervenes. And so all that is plain.

la: B. Albert., hic a. 58, addit: *patres nostri in scientia ista*. — Cfr. infra d. 18. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. — Pro *absolvitur* cod. I *absolvit*, cod. K *solvit*.

en: Blessed Albert, here a. 58, adds: *our fathers in that knowledge*. — Cf. below, d. 18, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1, in the body. — For *absolvitur* cod. I [reads] *absolvit*, cod. K *solvit*.

la: Codd. FG *cum non sit*. — Cfr. de hoc dubio supra a. 1. q. 1, ubi in scholio alii auctores de hac re tractantes allegati sunt.

en: Codd. FG [read] *cum non sit*. — Cf. concerning this doubt above, a. 1, q. 1, where in the scholion other authors treating of this matter are cited.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2, ubi etiam seq. solutio insinuatur.

en: See above, a. 1, q. 2, where the following solution is also intimated.

la: Hic in lit. c. 4. — Codd. FG *dixit*.

en: Here in the text, c. 4. — Codd. FG [read] *dixit*.

la: De quo infra d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. 1.

en: Concerning which, below, d. 18, p. I, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Cod. U *vel etiam*.

en: Cod. U [reads] *vel etiam*.

la: In textu huius dubii. — Aliquanto superius post *manum* cod. R addit *suam*.

en: In the text of this doubt. — A little above, after *manum*, cod. R adds *suam*.

la: Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 60; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is solved by Blessed Albert, here a. 60; St. Thomas, here in connection with the text.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1.

en: Cf. above the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 1.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 22. a. I. q. 1.

en: As is shown below, d. 22, a. I, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 103, nota 14.

en: Cf. above, p. 103, note 14.

en: Dist. 21, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, and dub. 3.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 2.

en: See above the text of the Master, d. XVI, c. 2.

la: Cfr. supra a. I. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, a. I, q. 2.

la: Edd. supplent *iterare*.

en: The editions supply *iterare* [to repeat].

la: Dist. 21. p. II. a. I. q. I. et dub. 3.

en: Dist. 21, p. II, a. I, q. I, and dub. 3.

la: Partis II. a. I. q. I. — Superius pro *et sic scitur et* cod. E *et sic scitur esse* (codd. RSTUX *est*, cod. Z *Ecclesiae*), edd. *et sic satis est*, omisso subinde *et ingratitudo*.

en: [Dist. 21,] Part II, a. I, q. I. — Above, for *et sic scitur et* cod. E [reads] *et sic scitur esse* (codd. RSTUX *est*, cod. Z *Ecclesiae*), the editions *et sic satis est*, with *et ingratitudo* thereupon omitted.

la: Dist. 21. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro *dimidiatione* cod. H *diminutione*, edd. *denudatione*. Paulo ante pro *iterum teneri*, quod habent codd. HK (1 a secunda manu), codd. FG *necessarium iterum confiteri*, cod. O *iterum confitendum*, cod. U *iterandum*, alii codd. incongrue tantum *iterum*, quod edd. mutarunt in *verum*.

en: Dist. 21, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — For *dimidiatione* cod. H [reads] *diminutione*, the editions *denudatione*. A little before, for *iterum teneri*, which codd. HK (1 by a second hand) have, codd. FG [read] *necessarium iterum confiteri*, cod. O *iterum confitendum*, cod. U *iterandum*, other codd. incongruously only *iterum*, which the editions changed into *verum*.

la: Partis II. a. I. q. I. — Ibid. etiam in scholio alii auctores, qui de hac re agunt, allegantur.

en: [Dist. 21,] Part II, a. I, q. I. — There too, in the scholion, other authors who treat of this matter are cited.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450-dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p463..465-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` (Vol IV two-column; PDF = printed + 20; column split x = 1880), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 51706–51919, `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`), which cascade-interleaves the two columns of these pages. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page span.** The centered **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** header prints at the foot of the left column of p. 463 (running head "DIST. XVII. P. III. DUBIA.", page-number 463 verified). Dub. I, Dub. II, and the opening of Dub. III are on p. 463; Dub. III's close and the whole of Dub. IV run across p. 464 ("SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." running head, page-number 464 verified); Dub. IV's concluding paragraph ("Ex his satis patent obiecta…") finishes at the top of the right column of p. 465 (running head "DIST. XVIII. P. I.", page-number 465 verified), immediately before the centered **DISTINCTIO XVIII / Pars I / Cap. I** littera header. The chunk STOPS at "Et sic patet illud totum." and does not include any DISTINCTIO XVIII text.

**Footer split.** Four dubia, 19 apparatus entries. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page; markers are renumbered sequentially for the chunk:
- p. 463 carries footer notes 1–9, of which **notes 1–2 belong to the preceding (not-yet-promoted) p3-a2 question whose tail prints above the DUBIA header** (note 1 = the *furti* definition, note 2 = *sed forma respectu sacrilegii*²). Only p. 463 notes **3–9** fall within the dubia body and are rendered here as chunk [^1]–[^7].
- p. 464 carries footer notes 1–11, rendered here as chunk [^8]–[^18].
- p. 465's dubia share is its footer note 1 only (rendered as chunk [^19]); p. 465's remaining footers ("NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" plus the *Matth.* and *Ambrosius* notes) belong to the DISTINCTIO XVIII littera and are NOT part of this chunk.

**[?] flags.**
- Markers [^8] (Dub. IV opener) and [^15]/[^16] in the right column of p. 464 sit in heavily column-interleaved OCR; their exact anchor positions (opener line; "casus"/"iterare" region; "patebit infra" of the integritas clause) were placed from the clearest band reading and may be off by a clause. Content of the notes is secure. [?]
- Notes 1–2 of p. 463 are assigned to the prior chunk on the strength of their visible markers landing in the prior-chunk tail above the DUBIA header; if that p3-a2 chunk is later promoted, confirm it captures both. [?]

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 18, Part 1

title_alt: De clavibus (Littera Magistri, Caps. I–VIII, pp. 465–468)

title_alt: On the keys (the Master's text, Chaps. I–VIII, pp. 465–468)

source_text:
<!-- page 465 -->

### Pars I.

### Cap. I. *De remissione, quam praestat sacerdos.*

Hic quaeri solet, si peccatum omnino dimissum est a Deo per cordis contritionem, ex quo poenitens votum habuit confitendi, quid postea dimittatur ei a sacerdote. Video enim, quo vinculo eum ligat, scilicet temporalis poenae, sed non, a quo eum absolvat; et ideo quaero. Ante poenitudinem quippe cordis anima rei maculam habet et foetorem peccati atque aeternae ultionis vinculo ligata existit. Si vero ante confessionem per cordis contritionem Deus per se ipsum sine ministerio sacerdotis et debitum omnino relaxat et animam interius purgat a contagione et foetore peccati; quid ergo mundat, quid dimittit sacerdos? Ubi sunt claves illae, quas Dominus tradidit Petro et successoribus eius dicens[^1]: *Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum; et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelo; et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in caelis?* Ut autem praemissa quaestio plenius explicari valeat, quasi altius ducto rete, de his clavibus et usu earum disseramus.

### Cap. II. *De clavibus.*

Claves istae sunt non corporales, sed spirituales, scilicet « discernendi scientia et potentia iudicandi », id est ligandi et solvendi, qua « dignos recipere et indignos debet excludere a regno » ecclesiasticus iudex, qui sicut habet ius ligandi, ita et solvendi. Unde Ambrosius[^2]: « Dominus par ius et solvendi esse voluit et ligandi, qui utrumque pari conditione promisit. Ergo qui solvendi ius non habet, nec ligandi habet ». Et infra: « Certum est, quod Ecclesiae utrumque licet, haeresis utrumque non habet; ius enim hoc solis permissum est sacerdotibus. Recte igitur Ecclesia hoc sibi vindicat, quae veros habet sacerdotes; haeresis vindicare non potest, quae veros sacerdotes non habet ».

### Cap. III. *De usu clavium.*

Usus vero harum clavium multiplex est, discernere scilicet ligandos vel solvendos, ac deinde ligare vel solvere. « Qui enim indignos ligat vel solvit propria potestate se privat[^3] », id est, dignum privatione se facit.

### Cap. IV. *Si sacerdos potest dimittere, vel retinere peccatum.*

Sed quaeritur, utrum a peccato solvere valeat sacerdos, id est a *culpa,* ut culpae maculam abstergat, vel debitum aeternae mortis solvere valeat. — Quidam arbitrati sunt, cum peccator dupliciter ligatus teneatur, ut praedictum est, scilicet mentis contagione ac caecitate et debito futurae poenae, alterum curari per Deum, alterum solvi per sacerdotem. Patitur enim per peccatum quasdam tenebras interiores et maculas, a quibus nisi liberetur, proiicietur *in tenebras exteriores;* cum autem liberatur ab his, suscitatur a morte peccati. Unde Apostolus[^4]: *Surge qui dormis, et illuminabit te Christus.* Solus enim Christus, non sacerdos, animam resuscitat, ac pulsis tenebris interioribus et maculis, eam illuminat et mundat, qui animae faciem lavat; debitum vero aeternae poenae solvere concessit

<!-- page 466 -->

sacerdotibus. Quod in resurrectione Lazari signatum asserunt, quem Christus prius per se interius vivificavit, deinde foras exire iussit cumque adhuc ligatum solvere Apostolis praecepit; quia, ut aiunt, ipse interius animam a caligine maculaque peccati emundat, sacerdotibus vero dedit vinculum aeternae mortis solvere.

Alii vero dicunt, solum Deum, non sacerdotem debitum aeternae mortis dimittere, sicut et animam interius per se vivificat; nec tamen diffitentur sacerdotibus traditam potestatem peccata dimittendi et retinendi, quibus dictum est: *Quorum remiseritis peccata* etc. Sicut enim retinuit sibi potestatem baptismi, ita et poenitentiae. Et ideo, sicut interius gratia sua animam illuminat, ita et simul debitum aeternae mortis relaxat. Ipse enim per se ipsum peccata poenitentium tegit, et tunc tegit, quando ad poenam non reservat. Tunc ergo tegit, quando debitum poenae solvit. Quod autem ipse tegit, aperte dicit Augustinus, exponens illum locum Psalmi[^5]: *Quorum tecta sunt peccata,* id est « cooperta et abolita. Si enim texit Deus peccata, noluit advertere; si noluit advertere, noluit animadvertere, id est punire, sed ignoscere. Ita ergo dicit a Deo tecta, ut Deus non videat, id est aeternaliter puniat ». Videre enim Dei peccata est ad poenam imputare; avertere autem faciem a peccatis, hoc est ea ad poenam non reservare. Item Hieronymus[^6]: « Quibus Deus dimittit peccata, tegit, ne in iudicio revelentur ». Item Cassiodorus: « Qui gravia habent peccata, aliis Deus imputat, aliis per misericordiam non imputat ».

Ex his aperte ostenditur, quod Deus ipse poenitentem solvit a debito poenae, et tunc solvit, quando intus illuminat, inspirando veram cordis contritionem. Cui sententiae ratio suffragatur, et auctoritates attestantur. Nemo enim de peccato vere compungitur, habens cor contritum et humiliatum, nisi in caritate; qui autem caritatem habet dignus est vita; nemo autem simul dignus est vita et morte: non est igitur tunc ligatus debito aeternae mortis. Filius enim *irae* desiit esse, ex quo diligere et poenitere coepit. Ex tunc igitur solutus est ab ira, quae non manet super illum qui credit in Christum, sed super illum qui non credit. Non igitur postmodum per sacerdotem, cui confitetur, ab ira aeterna liberatur, a qua iam liberatus est per Dominum, ex quo dixit: *confitebor.* Solus ergo Deus hominem interius mundat a macula peccati et a debito aeternae poenae solvit; qui per Prophetam[^7] ait: *Ego solus deleo iniquitates et peccata populi.* Item Ambrosius: « Verbum Dei dimittit peccata; sacerdos est iudex. Sacerdos quidem officium suum exhibet, sed nullius potestatis iura exercet ». Idem[^8]: « Ille solus dimittit peccata, qui solus pro peccatis nostris mortuus est ». Item Augustinus: « Nemo tollit peccata nisi solus Deus, qui est Agnus tollens peccata mundi; tollit autem et dimittendo quae facta sunt, et adiuvando, ne fiant, et perducendo ad vitam, ubi omnino fieri non possunt ». — His aliisque pluribus testimoniis docetur, Deum solum per se peccata dimittere; et sicut dimittit quibusdam, ita et aliorum quorundam peccata retinet.

### Cap. V. *Quomodo sacerdotes dimittunt peccatum, vel retinent.*

Nec ideo tamen negamus, sacerdotibus concessam potestatem dimittendi et retinendi peccata, cum hoc Veritas in Evangelio aperte doceat. Hinc Augustinus[^9] ait: « Ecclesiae caritas, quae per Spiritum sanctum diffunditur in cordibus, eorum qui participes sui sunt, peccata dimittit, eorum qui non sunt, tenet ». Idem: « Sacerdotes possunt confitentibus parcere, quibus enim remittunt, remittit Deus. Lazarum enim de monumento suscitatum obtulit discipulis solvendum, per hoc ostendens, potestatem solvendi concessam sacerdotibus. Dixit enim: *Quodcumque solveritis super terram, erit solutum et in caelo* etc., hoc est, ego Deus et omnes caelestis curiae ordines et omnes Sancti in gloria mea laudant vobiscum et confirmant quos *ligatis et solvitis.* Non dixit: quos *putatis* ligare et solvere, sed, in quos exercetis opus iustitiae vel misericordiae. Aliter autem vel alia opera vestra in peccatores non cognosco ». Idem: « Cum veraciter ad Deum converso peccata dimittuntur, ab eis dimittuntur, quibus ipse veraci conversione coniungitur. Spiritus sanctus ea dimittit, qui datus est omnibus Sanctis sibi caritate cohaerentibus, sive se noverint corporaliter, sive non. Similiter cum alicuius tenentur peccata, ab eis tenentur, a quibus ille cordis pravitate disiungitur sive notis corporaliter, sive ignotis ». « Omnes mali spiritualiter a bonis seiuncti sunt ». — Ecce hic dicit, peccata dimitti vel teneri a viris sanctis, et tamen Spiritum sanctum ea dimittere dicit. Et quod maiori consideratione dignum est, idem etiam dicit, quod Deus per se, vel per Sanctos suos tantum peccata dimittit. Ait enim sic[^10]: « Sacramentum gratiae dat Deus etiam per malos; ipsam vero *gratiam* non nisi per se ipsum, vel per Sanctos suos. Et ideo remissionem peccatorum vel per se ipsum facit, vel per ipsius columbae membra, quibus ait: *Si cui dimiseritis, dimittentur* ». — Ecce, quam varia a doctoribus traduntur super his; et in hac tanta varietate, quid tenendum? Hoc sane dicere ac sentire possumus, quod solus Deus dimittit peccata

<!-- page 467 -->

et retinet, et tamen Ecclesiae contulit potestatem ligandi et solvendi; sed aliter ipse solvit vel ligat, aliter Ecclesia. Ipse enim *per se* tantum dimittit peccatum, quia et animam mundat ab interiori macula et a debito aeternae mortis solvit.

### Cap. VI. *Quomodo sacerdotes ligant, vel solvunt a peccatis.*

Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem ligandi et solvendi, id est *ostendendi* homines ligatos vel solutos — unde Dominus leprosum sanitati prius per se restituit, deinde ad sacerdotes misit, quorum iudicio ostenderetur mundatus; ita etiam Lazarum iam vivificatum obtulit discipulis solvendum — quia, etsi aliquis apud Deum sit solutus, non tamen in facie Ecclesiae solutus habetur nisi per iudicium sacerdotis. In solvendis igitur culpis vel retinendis ita operatur sacerdos evangelicus et iudicat, sicut olim legalis in illis qui contaminati erant lepra, quae peccatum significat. Unde Hieronymus[^11] super Matthaeum, ubi Dominus ait Petro: *Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis; et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in caelis:* « Hunc, inquit, locum quidam non intelligentes, aliquid sumunt de supercilio Pharisaeorum, ut damnare innoxios vel solvere se putent noxios, cum apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed reorum vita quaeratur. In Levitico ostendere se sacerdotibus iubentur leprosi, quos illi non *faciunt* leprosos vel mundos, sed discernunt qui mundi vel immundi sunt; ita et hic ». — Aperte hic ostenditur, quod non sequitur Deus Ecclesiae iudicium, quae per surreptionem et ignorantiam interdum iudicat; Deus autem semper iudicat secundum veritatem. Et in remittendis vel in retinendis culpis id iuris et officii habent evangelici sacerdotes, quod olim sub Lege habebant legales in curandis leprosis. Hi ergo peccata dimittunt vel retinent, dum dimissa a Deo vel retenta iudicant et ostendunt. Ponunt enim sacerdotes *nomen Domini super filios Israel,* sed ipse benedicit, ut legitur in Numeris[^12]. Hunc modum ligandi et solvendi Hieronymus supra notavit. Ligant quoque sacerdotes, dum satisfactionem poenitentiae confitentibus imponunt; solvunt, cum de ea aliquid dimittunt, vel per eam purgatos ad Sacramentorum communionem admittunt, quem modum superius[^13] Leo Papa notavit. Secundum hunc modum dicuntur etiam sacerdotes dimittere peccata vel retinere. Unde superius Augustinus dixit: *Quibus remittunt, remittit Deus* etc. Opus enim iustitiae exercent in peccatores, cum eos iusta poena ligant; opus misericordiae, dum de ea aliquid relaxant, vel Sacramentorum communioni conciliant; alia opera in peccatores exercere nequeunt. — Et notandum, quia quos satisfactione poenitentiae ligant eo ipso a peccatis solutos ostendunt, quia non imponitur alicui satisfactio poenitentialis, nisi quem sacerdos vere poenitentem arbitratur. Alii non imponunt[^14], et eo ipso peccatum retineri a Deo iudicant. Quod autem hoc ad claves pertineat, Augustinus ostendit dicens: « Frustrat claves Ecclesiae qui sine arbitrio sacerdotis poenitentiam agit, si sine oris confessione criminis indulgentiam impetratur ».

### Pars II.

### Cap. VII. *Quomodo intelligendum sit illud: Quodcumque solveritis etc.*

Secundum hos ligandi et solvendi modos quomodo verum est quod dicitur: *Quodcumque solveritis super terram, erit solutum et in caelis, et quodcumque ligaveritis super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis?* Aliquando enim ostendunt solutos vel ligatos qui non sunt apud Deum, et poena satisfactionis vel excommunicationis interdum indignos ligant vel solvunt, et indignos Sacramentis admittunt et dignos admitti arcent. — Sed intelligendum est hoc in illis quorum merita solvi vel ligari postulant. Tunc enim sententia sacerdotis iudicio Dei et totius caelestis curiae approbatur et confirmatur, cum ita ex discretione procedit[^15], ut

<!-- page 468 -->

reorum merita non contradicant. Quoscumque ergo solvunt vel ligant, adhibentes clavem discretionis reorum meritis, solvuntur vel ligantur *in caelis,* id est apud Deum; quia divino iudicio sententia sacerdotis sic progressa approbatur et confirmatur. Quos ergo secundum merita sententia Ecclesiae percellit, laedit, et illi foris sunt apud Deum. — Qui autem non meruit sententia Ecclesiae non laeditur, nisi contemnat. Unde Origenes[^16]: « Exiit quis a veritate, a fide, a caritate, et per hoc exit de castris Ecclesiae, etiam si episcopi voce non abiiciatur; sicut econtra aliquis non recto iudicio foras mittitur, sed si non egit, ut mereretur exire, nihil laeditur. Interdum enim qui foras mittitur intus est, et qui foris est intus videtur retineri ». — Ecce qualis et quantus est usus apostolicarum clavium. Iam ostensum est ex parte, qualiter sacerdotes dimittant peccata vel retineant, et tamen retinuit sibi Deus quandam singularem potestatem dimittendi vel retinendi, quia ipse solus per se debitum aeternae mortis solvit et animam interius purgat.

### Cap. VIII. *Quae sint interiores tenebrae et interior macula.*

Hic quaeritur, quae sit illa macula, et quae sint illae tenebrae interiores, a quibus Deus interius animam purgat, cum veram poenitentiam immittit. — De tenebris et interiori caligine satis facile est et intelligere et respondere. Cum enim quis mortaliter delinquit, et gratia virtutis privatur, si qua praecessit, et naturalium bonorum elisionem patitur. Unde et intellectus obtunditur, et totus homo interior obtenebratur, et ita quasi quadam caligine mens obvolvitur, quae caligo peccati poena est. Hanc vero Deus pellit, cum poenitentiam immittit, per quam bona perdita restituit et vitiata reparat. Unde Propheta[^17]: *Nebulam sicut cinerem spargit.* — Sed quae est *macula peccati,* a qua animam lavat? Ecce enim, quis voluit facere homicidium et patravit, quo patrato, desinit tam *velle* quam *facere;* nondum tamen vere et humiliter poenitet nec confiteri proponit. Quae igitur remansit in anima illius *macula? Mala voluntas* quidem macula fuit illius animae, sed illa transit; macula etiam est, si poenitere contemnit, sed hoc est peccatum *aliud* a praecedenti. Quae igitur macula remansit, a qua ipse in poenitentia purgatur? — Polluta quidem est anima, quousque poenitet, sicut erat, dum in ea prava erat voluntas. Sicut enim qui tangit morticinum vel aliud immundum ita pollutus est post tactum, quousque lavatur, sicut fuit, dum tangeret; ita post actum peccati polluta remanet anima, sicut fuit in ipso actu peccati, quia ita longe est a Deo per *dissimilitudinem,* qui est vita et munditia mentis, sicut fuit, dum peccatum ageret. Ipsa ergo *dissimilitudo,* quae inest animae ex peccato et est a Deo elongatio, animae macula intelligitur, a qua purgatur in poenitentia. Hoc autem solus Deus facit, qui solus suscitat animam et illuminat; quod sacerdotes nequeunt, qui tamen medici sunt animarum. Unde Propheta: *Nunquid medici suscitabunt et confitebuntur tibi?* Quod exponens Augustinus ait: « Boni doctores recte *medici* dicuntur, qui viventes curare ministerio possunt, sed non mortuos suscitare; sola enim Dei gratia reviviscunt ».

---

english:
<!-- page 465 -->

### Part I.

### Chap. I. *On the remission which the priest bestows.*

Here it is wont to be asked: if a sin has been wholly forgiven by God through contrition of heart, from the moment the penitent has had the desire of confessing, what is afterward forgiven him by the priest. For I see by what bond he binds him, namely of temporal penalty, but not from what he absolves him; and therefore I ask. For before the repentance of the heart the guilty soul has the stain and stench of sin, and exists bound by the bond of eternal vengeance. But if before confession, through contrition of heart, God by Himself, without the ministry of a priest, both wholly relaxes the debt and interiorly purges the soul from the contagion and stench of sin; what then does the priest cleanse, what does he forgive? Where are those keys which the Lord delivered to Peter and his successors, saying[^1]: *To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven?* But that the foregoing question may be more fully unfolded, as it were by a net cast deeper, let us discourse concerning these keys and their use.

### Chap. II. *On the keys.*

These keys are not corporeal, but spiritual, namely « the knowledge of discerning and the power of judging », that is, of binding and loosing, by which the ecclesiastical judge « ought to receive the worthy and exclude the unworthy from the kingdom », who, as he has the right of binding, so also of loosing. Whence Ambrose[^2]: « The Lord willed the right both of loosing and of binding to be equal, who promised both on an equal condition. Therefore he who has not the right of loosing, has not the right of binding either ». And below: « It is certain that both are lawful to the Church, that heresy has neither; for this right is permitted to priests alone. Rightly therefore does the Church claim this for herself, who has true priests; heresy cannot claim it, who has not true priests ».

### Chap. III. *On the use of the keys.*

But the use of these keys is manifold, namely to discern who are to be bound or loosed, and then to bind or loose. « For he who binds or looses the unworthy by his own power deprives himself[^3] », that is, makes himself worthy of deprivation.

### Chap. IV. *Whether the priest can forgive, or retain, sin.*

But it is asked whether the priest can loose from sin, that is from *guilt,* so as to wipe away the stain of guilt, or can loose the debt of eternal death. — Some have judged that, since the sinner is bound in a twofold way, as has been said, namely by the contagion and blindness of mind and by the debt of future penalty, the one is cured by God, the other loosed by the priest. For through sin he suffers certain interior darknesses and stains, from which unless he be freed, he will be cast *into the exterior darkness;* but when he is freed from these, he is raised from the death of sin. Whence the Apostle[^4]: *Rise thou that sleepest, and Christ shall enlighten thee.* For Christ alone, not the priest, raises the soul, and, the interior darknesses and stains being driven out, enlightens and cleanses it, who washes the face of the soul; but to loose the debt of eternal penalty He granted

<!-- page 466 -->

to the priests. Which they assert was signified in the resurrection of Lazarus, whom Christ first interiorly vivified by Himself, then bade go forth, and, while he was still bound, bade the Apostles loose him; because, as they say, He Himself interiorly cleanses the soul from the gloom and stain of sin, but to the priests He gave [the power] to loose the bond of eternal death.

But others say that God alone, not the priest, forgives the debt of eternal death, just as He also interiorly vivifies the soul by Himself; nor yet do they deny that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was delivered to priests, to whom it was said: *Whose sins you shall forgive* etc. For just as He retained to Himself the power of baptism, so also of penance. And therefore, just as He interiorly enlightens the soul by His grace, so also at the same time He relaxes the debt of eternal death. For He Himself by Himself covers the sins of the penitent, and He covers them then, when He does not reserve them for penalty. Then therefore He covers, when He looses the debt of penalty. But that He Himself covers, Augustine plainly says, expounding that place of the Psalm[^5]: *Whose sins are covered,* that is « hidden and abolished. For if God has covered the sins, He willed not to advert to them; if He willed not to advert, He willed not to take notice, that is, to punish, but to pardon. Thus therefore He says they are covered by God, that God may not see them, that is, eternally punish them ». For to see sins is, for God, to impute them to penalty; but to turn the face from sins is not to reserve them for penalty. Likewise Jerome[^6]: « Those to whom God forgives sins, He covers, lest they be revealed in judgment ». Likewise Cassiodorus: « As to those who have grave sins, to some God imputes them, to others through mercy He does not impute them ».

From these things it is plainly shown that God Himself looses the penitent from the debt of penalty, and He looses then, when He inwardly enlightens, by inspiring true contrition of heart. To which opinion reason gives support, and authorities give witness. For no one is truly compunct over sin, having a contrite and humbled heart, except in charity; but he who has charity is worthy of life; and no one is at the same time worthy of life and of death: he is not therefore then bound by the debt of eternal death. For he ceased to be a son of *wrath* from the moment he began to love and repent. From then therefore he is loosed from the wrath which does not remain upon him who believes in Christ, but upon him who does not believe. Not therefore is he afterward freed from eternal wrath by the priest, to whom he confesses, from which he has already been freed by the Lord, from the moment he said: *I will confess.* God alone therefore interiorly cleanses man from the stain of sin and looses him from the debt of eternal penalty; who through the Prophet[^7] says: *I alone blot out the iniquities and sins of the people.* Likewise Ambrose: « The Word of God forgives sins; the priest is the judge. The priest indeed performs his office, but exercises the rights of no power ». The same[^8]: « He alone forgives sins, who alone died for our sins ». Likewise Augustine: « No one takes away sins but God alone, who is the Lamb taking away the sins of the world; and He takes them away both by forgiving the things that have been done, and by helping that they be not done, and by leading to the life where they can in no wise be done ». — By these and many other testimonies it is taught that God alone by Himself forgives sins; and as He forgives to some, so also He retains the sins of certain others.

### Chap. V. *In what manner priests forgive sin, or retain it.*

Nor yet do we therefore deny that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was granted to priests, since the Truth plainly teaches this in the Gospel. Hence Augustine[^9] says: « The charity of the Church, which is poured forth in hearts through the Holy Spirit, forgives the sins of those who are partakers of it, and retains the sins of those who are not ». The same: « Priests can spare those who confess, for those whom they forgive, God forgives. For He offered Lazarus, raised from the tomb, to the disciples to be loosed, by this showing that the power of loosing was granted to priests. For He said: *Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven* etc., that is, I God and all the orders of the heavenly court and all the Saints in my glory praise with you and confirm those whom you *bind and loose.* He did not say: those whom you *think* to bind and loose, but, those upon whom you exercise the work of justice or mercy. But otherwise, or [in respect of] your other works upon sinners, I do not acknowledge [them] ». The same: « When sins are forgiven to one truly converted to God, they are forgiven by those to whom He Himself is joined by true conversion. The Holy Spirit forgives them, who is given to all the Saints cleaving to Him by charity, whether they know one another corporally or not. Likewise when anyone's sins are retained, they are retained by those from whom he is disjoined by the depravity of his heart, whether [those] known corporally or unknown ». « All the wicked are spiritually separated from the good ». — Behold, here he says that sins are forgiven or retained by holy men, and yet he says that the Holy Spirit forgives them. And what is worthy of greater consideration, he likewise says that God by Himself, or through His Saints only, forgives sins. For he says thus[^10]: « God gives the Sacrament of grace even through the wicked; but *grace* itself only by Himself, or through His Saints. And therefore the remission of sins He effects either by Himself, or through the members of that dove, to whom He says: *If to anyone you shall forgive, they shall be forgiven* ». — Behold how various are the things handed down by the doctors concerning these matters; and in this so great variety, what is to be held? This indeed we can say and judge, that God alone forgives sins

<!-- page 467 -->

and retains them, and yet He has conferred upon the Church the power of binding and loosing; but otherwise He Himself looses or binds, otherwise the Church. For He Himself *by Himself* alone forgives sin, because He both cleanses the soul from the interior stain and looses it from the debt of eternal death.

### Chap. VI. *In what manner priests bind, or loose, from sins.*

But this He did not grant to priests, to whom however He gave the power of binding and loosing, that is, of *showing* men bound or loosed — whence the Lord first by Himself restored the leper to health, then sent him to the priests, by whose judgment he should be shown cleansed; thus too He offered Lazarus, already vivified, to the disciples to be loosed — because, even if anyone be loosed in God's sight, yet he is not held loosed in the face of the Church except by the judgment of the priest. In loosing therefore or retaining faults the evangelical priest so works and judges as of old the legal [priest] did among those who were contaminated with the leprosy which signifies sin. Whence Jerome[^11] upon Matthew, where the Lord says to Peter: *To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven:* « This place, he says, some not understanding take something from the haughtiness of the Pharisees, so as to think they condemn the innocent or loose themselves who are guilty, whereas in God's sight not the sentence of the priests but the life of the accused is sought. In Leviticus the lepers are bidden to show themselves to the priests, whom those [priests] do not *make* lepers or clean, but discern who are clean or unclean; and so too here ». — Here it is plainly shown that God does not follow the judgment of the Church, which through stealth and ignorance sometimes judges [wrongly]; but God always judges according to truth. And in remitting or retaining faults the evangelical priests have that right and office which of old the legal [priests] had under the Law in curing lepers. These therefore forgive or retain sins, while they judge and show [them] forgiven or retained by God. For the priests place *the name of the Lord upon the children of Israel,* but He Himself blesses, as is read in Numbers[^12]. This mode of binding and loosing Jerome noted above. Priests also bind, while they impose the satisfaction of penance on those confessing; they loose, when they remit something of it, or admit those purged through it to the communion of the Sacraments, which mode Pope Leo noted above[^13]. According to this mode priests too are said to forgive sins or retain them. Whence Augustine said above: *Those whom they forgive, God forgives* etc. For they exercise the work of justice upon sinners, when they bind them with a just penalty; the work of mercy, when they relax something of it, or reconcile [them] to the communion of the Sacraments; other works upon sinners they cannot exercise. — And it is to be noted that those whom they bind by the satisfaction of penance, they thereby show loosed from sins, because penitential satisfaction is imposed on no one except him whom the priest judges to be truly penitent. Others they do not [thus] charge[^14], and thereby they judge the sin to be retained by God. But that this pertains to the keys, Augustine shows, saying: « He frustrates the keys of the Church who does penance without the judgment of a priest, if pardon of the crime be sought without oral confession ».

### Part II.

### Chap. VII. *In what manner that saying is to be understood: Whatsoever you shall loose etc.*

According to these modes of binding and loosing, in what manner is that which is said true: *Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven?* For sometimes they show loosed or bound those who are not [so] in God's sight, and by the penalty of satisfaction or of excommunication they sometimes bind or loose the unworthy, and admit the unworthy to the Sacraments and keep back the worthy from being admitted. — But this is to be understood of those whose merits demand to be loosed or bound. For then the sentence of the priest is approved and confirmed by the judgment of God and of the whole heavenly court, when it so proceeds from discretion[^15], that

<!-- page 468 -->

the merits of the accused do not contradict it. Whomsoever therefore they loose or bind, applying the key of discretion to the merits of the accused, are loosed or bound *in heaven,* that is in God's sight; because by divine judgment the sentence of the priest, having so proceeded, is approved and confirmed. Those therefore whom the sentence of the Church strikes according to their merits, it harms, and they are outside in God's sight. — But he who has not deserved [it] is not harmed by the sentence of the Church, unless he despise it. Whence Origen[^16]: « Someone goes out from truth, from faith, from charity, and through this he goes out from the camp of the Church, even if he be not cast out by the bishop's voice; just as, on the contrary, someone is sent outside by an unrighteous judgment, but if he has not acted so as to deserve to go out, he is in no way harmed. For sometimes he who is sent outside is within, and he who is outside seems to be retained within ». — Behold of what kind and how great is the use of the apostolic keys. It has now been shown in part how priests forgive sins or retain them, and yet God has retained to Himself a certain singular power of forgiving or retaining, because He alone by Himself looses the debt of eternal death and interiorly purges the soul.

### Chap. VIII. *What the interior darkness and the interior stain are.*

Here it is asked what that stain is, and what those interior darknesses are, from which God interiorly purges the soul, when He sends in true penance. — Concerning the darknesses and the interior gloom it is easy enough both to understand and to answer. For when anyone sins mortally, he is also deprived of the grace of virtue, if any preceded, and suffers a beating-down of his natural goods. Whence also the intellect is dulled, and the whole interior man is darkened, and thus the mind is wrapped as it were in a certain gloom, which gloom is the penalty of sin. But this God drives away, when He sends in penance, through which He restores the goods that were lost and repairs those that were vitiated. Whence the Prophet[^17]: *He scattereth the mist like ashes.* — But what is the *stain of sin,* from which He washes the soul? For behold, someone willed to commit homicide and did it, and, this being done, he ceases both to *will* and to *do* it; yet he does not yet truly and humbly repent nor propose to confess. What stain therefore has remained in that soul? The *evil will* indeed was the stain of that soul, but that passes; there is also a stain, if he despises to repent, but this is *another* sin from the preceding. What stain therefore has remained, from which he is purged in penance? — The soul indeed is polluted, so long as it does not repent, just as it was while the evil will was in it. For just as he who touches a carcass or another unclean thing is so polluted after the touch, until he is washed, as he was while he touched it; so after the act of sin the soul remains polluted, just as it was in the very act of sin, because it is so far from God by *unlikeness,* who is the life and cleanness of the mind, as it was while it committed the sin. That *unlikeness* therefore which is in the soul from sin and is a distancing from God, is understood [to be] the stain of the soul, from which it is purged in penance. But this God alone does, who alone raises the soul and enlightens it; which priests cannot [do], who nevertheless are physicians of souls. Whence the Prophet: *Shall physicians raise to life, and confess to thee?* Expounding which Augustine says: « Good teachers are rightly called *physicians,* who can cure the living by their ministry, but not raise the dead; for by the grace of God alone do they come to life again ».

---

la: Matth. 16, 19. Inferius respicitur Luc. 5, 4.

en: Matt. 16:19. Below Luke 5:4 is regarded.

la: Libro I. de Poenitentia, c. 2. n. 7. Superius plura verba quod habent codd. H K (1 a secunda manu), codd. F G *necessarium iterum confiteri,* cod. O *iterum confitendum,* cod. U *iterandum,* alii codd. incongrue tantum *iterum,* quod edd. mutarunt in *verum.*

en: Book I *de Poenitentia,* c. 2, n. 7. Above, several words which codd. H K (1 from a second hand) have, codd. F G [read] *necessarium iterum confiteri,* cod. O *iterum confitendum,* cod. U *iterandum,* other codd. unsuitably only *iterum,* which the editions changed into *verum.*

la: Libro cit., ibid. inferius; vide II. de Cain et Abel, c. 4. n. 1-5; C. *Verbum Dei* (51.), de Poenitentia, d. I.

en: The book cited [Ambrose, *de Poenitentia* I], ibid. below; see [the] second [book] *de Cain et Abel,* c. 4, n. 1–5; the canon *Verbum Dei* (51), de Poenitentia, d. I.

la: Eph. 5, 14. Superius respicitur Matth. 22, 13; de Lazaro vide Ioan. 11, 44. — Deinde citatur Ioan. 20, 23. — Quae sumta sunt ex Glossa Bedae apud Lyranum ad locum Matthaei supra cit.

en: Eph. 5:14. Above Matt. 22:13 is regarded; on Lazarus see John 11:44. — Then John 20:23 is cited. — These things are taken from the Gloss of Bede in Lyra at the place of Matthew cited above.

la: Psalm. 31, 1; Enarrat. 2. n. 9; cfr. Enarrat. in Ps. 50, n. 14, ubi explicantur quae sequuntur. — Hic locus et seq. Cassiodori sunt in Glossa ad Ps. 31, 2.

en: Ps. 31:1; [Augustine's] second Exposition, n. 9; cf. the Exposition on Ps. 50, n. 14, where the things that follow are explained. — This passage and the following one of Cassiodorus are in the Gloss on Ps. 31:2.

la: Isai. 43, 25. — Locus Ambrosii est II. de Cain et Abel, c. 4. n. 15, sed verbis et sententia aliquatenus diversis; est verbotenus in C. *Verbum Dei* (51.), supra cit. — Pro *est iudex* codd. et edd., exceptis 4, 6, 8, 9, *et iudex,* refragante canone.

en: Isa. 43:25. — The passage of Ambrose is [the] second [book] *de Cain et Abel,* c. 4, n. 15, but with words and sense somewhat different; it is word-for-word in the canon *Verbum Dei* (51), cited above. — For *est iudex* the codd. and edd., except 4, 6, 8, 9, [have] *et iudex,* against the canon.

la: Exposit. in Evang. Lucae libr. VI. n. 109. — Locus August. est l. de Peccator. merit. et remissione, ex cc. 23. 28. 39. collectus; ad verbum in C. *Nemo tollit* (141.), de Consecrat. d. 4.

en: Exposition on the Gospel of Luke, book VI, n. 109. — The passage of Augustine is from the [first] book *de Peccatorum meritis et remissione,* gathered from cc. 23, 28, 39; word-for-word in the canon *Nemo tollit* (141), de Consecratione, d. 4.

la: [Locus Ambrosii continuatur ex Exposit. in Evang. Lucae libr. VI. n. 109, nota praecedente cit.; sententia « Ille solus dimittit peccata » sub eodem per-columnam footer fertur.]

en: [The passage of Ambrose continues from the *Exposition of the Gospel of Luke,* book VI, n. 109, cited in the preceding note; the « He alone forgives sins » sentence is carried under the same per-column footer.]

la: In Ioan. Evang. tract. 121. n. 4; C. *Ecclesiae* (140), ibid. Seq. locus est de Vera et falsa Poenit. c. 10. n. 25; ubi pro *caelestis curiae* codd. BCDE, ed. 1 et originale *caelestis militiae.* Deinde originale, Vat. et ed. 6 omittunt *vel alia.*

en: On the Gospel of John, tractate 121, n. 4; the canon *Ecclesiae* (140), ibid. The following passage is *de Vera et falsa Poenitentia,* c. 10, n. 25; where for *caelestis curiae* codd. BCDE, ed. 1 and the original [have] *caelestis militiae.* Then the original, the Vatican edition, and ed. 6 omit *vel alia.*

la: Libr. VI. de Baptismo contra Donatist. c. 4. n. 6. Seq. locus ibid. c. 5. n. 7. — Inferius pro *teneri* edd., excepta 1, *retineri,* refragantibus codd.

en: Book VI *de Baptismo contra Donatistas,* c. 4, n. 6. The following passage [is] ibid., c. 5, n. 7. — Below, for *teneri* the editions, except 1, [have] *retineri,* against the codices.

la: Libr. III. c. 16. v. 19; verbotenus ibi in Glossa apud Lyranum. Respicitur Levit. 14, 2. — Inferius solae edd., exceptis 1, 8, addunt *semper* ante *sequitur.*

en: Book III, c. 16, v. 19; word-for-word there in the Gloss in Lyra. Lev. 14:2 is regarded. — Below the editions alone, except 1 and 8, add *semper* before *sequitur.*

en: [Numbers] c. 6:27.

la: Dist. XVII. c. 3; verba Augustini vide supra c. 5.

en: Dist. XVII, c. 3; for the words of Augustine see above, c. 5.

la: Vat. cum pluribus edd. perperam *imponuntur,* ed. 8 *imponit.* — Locus Augustini, sed verbis aliis expressus, est in Serm. 392. (alias homil. 49. inter Homil. 50) c. 3. n. 3; verbotenus apud Gratian. in C. *Quis aliquando* (87.), de Poenit. d. I.

en: The Vatican edition with several editions wrongly [has] *imponuntur,* ed. 8 *imponit.* — The passage of Augustine, but expressed in other words, is in Sermon 392 (otherwise hom. 49 among the 50 Homilies), c. 3, n. 3; word-for-word in Gratian, in the canon *Quis aliquando* (87), de Poenitentia, d. I.

la: Codd. et edd. 3, 7, 8 *praeciditur.* — Infra respicitur I. Cor. 5, 5. — Deinde pro *Haec autem* I, *Haec* edd., excepta *est autem,* et sic non coniungunt vocabulum *anathematizatio* cum verbo *infligit.* — Codd. et plures edd. *vel prodit, vel proderit.*

en: The codd. and edd. 3, 7, 8 [have] *praeciditur.* — Below 1 Cor. 5:5 is regarded. — Then for *Haec autem* [ed.] 1 [has] *Haec,* editions [reading] *est autem,* and thus they do not join the word *anathematizatio* with the verb *infligit.* — The codd. and several edd. [read] *vel prodit, vel proderit.*

la: Homil. 14. in Levit. n. 3.

en: Homily 14 on Leviticus, n. 3.

la: Psalm. 147, 16. Cfr. Glossa Lyrani in hunc locum. — Infra de tactu mortui cfr. Levit. 11, 31; Num. 19, 22. — De anima a Deo elongata cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 87, 11.

en: Ps. 147:16. Cf. the Gloss of Lyra on this place. — Below, on the touch of a dead body cf. Lev. 11:31; Num. 19:22. — On the soul distanced from God cf. Augustine, Exposition on Ps. 87:11. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set under the VOL II OVERRIDE PDF-priority inversion from the column-band reads (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p46{5,6,7,8}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, vol4 split x=1880, offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against the cascade-fragmented IA djvu OCR (raw lines 51920–52276). Running heads verified: p.465 (DISTINCTIO XVIII begins after the tail of d.17's Dub. IV), `DIST. XVIII. P. I.`; p.466 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV`; `DIST. XVIII. P. II.` (p.467); p.468 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV`. The d.18 littera opens partway down the p.465 left column; printed_pages therefore [465–468], not 464 (p.464 is still d.17's Dub. IV).

**Structure.** The littera carries the Master's own two-pars division: **Pars I** = Caps. I–VI (p.465 Cap. I–IV → p.466 Cap. IV cont.–V → p.467 Cap. V cont.–VI, closing Pars I); **Pars II** = Caps. VII–VIII (p.467 Cap. VII → p.468 Cap. VII cont.–VIII). Per the dispatch brief, the "Pars II." header (raw ~52166) is the Master's own division and is rendered in place; the littera continues past it.

**End boundary.** The Cap. VIII littera completes in the p.468 **right** column with « ...sola enim Dei gratia reviviscunt ». The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVIII. / Pars I. / De potestate clavium et usu earum in foro poenitentiali. / Hic quaeri solet, si peccatum iam omnino dimissum est a Deo etc. / DIVISIO TEXTUS` header block printed in the p.468 left column (and the *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM*) belong to the **following commentary chunk** and are forwarded, not rendered here.

**Apparatus split / cross-chunk hand-off.** 17 littera notes rendered (`[^1]–[^17]`). [^8] has no separate printed footer of its own — the second Ambrose sentence (« Ille solus dimittit peccata ») is carried under the *Exposit. in Evang. Lucae* citation that the printed footer attaches to the preceding sentence; an explicit editorial bridge marker documents this so the body anchor pairs. The p.468 right-column *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* (note 1: « Ita codd. F G H, quorum lectio confirmatur ex *Divisione textus* d. 17, p. 1; alii codd. et edd. *absolutionis* ») are forwarded to the d.18-p1 COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO chunk.

**[?] flags.** None. One OCR garble resolved silently: [^7] canon number read « (lil.) » in the shattered OCR → (141) per the *de Consecratione* d.4 canon sequence, confirmed against the PDF band.