title: Dist. 17, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt:
Utrum omnes adulti teneantur confiteri
Whether all adults are bound to confess

source_text:
<!-- page 442 -->

### Articulus II. *De confessione quoad obligationem exsequentis.*

Consequenter, viso de institutione confessionis, quaeritur de obligatione ad ipsam. Et quantum ad hoc quaeruntur tria:

*Primo*, per comparationem ad subiectum.
*Secundo*, per comparationem ad tempus.
*Tertio*, per comparationem ad modum.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum omnes adulti, boni et mali, ad confessionem teneantur.*

Primo igitur quaeritur, utrum omnes adulti, boni et mali, ad confessionem teneantur. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per decretalem *de Poenitentiis et remissionibus* libro quinto[^1]: « Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia peccata sua, saltem semel in anno, fideliter confiteatur proprio sacerdoti ». Et quod illud sit praeceptum, patet in hoc, quod subiungitur gravis poena, scilicet quod « vivens ab ingressu Ecclesiae arceatur, et moriens christiana careat sepultura ».

2. Item, primae Ioannis primo[^2]: *Si dixerimus, quoniam peccatum non habemus, mendaces sumus, et veritas non est in nobis*; loquitur de omnibus communiter: ergo omnis qui dicit, se peccatum non habere, peccat mortaliter: ergo quilibet tenetur se recognoscere peccatorem secundum formam Ecclesiae, quae tradita est peccatoribus; sed hoc est per confessionem: ergo etc.

3. Item, praeceptum est omnibus orare, et nullus absolvitur quantumcumque perfectus ab oratione dominicali: ergo omnes tenentur dicere: *Dimitte nobis debita nostra*[^3]; sed Dominus non tantum ad hoc instituit orationem, immo etiam confessionem; sed oratio est opus satisfactorium et praesupponit confessionem: ergo etc.

4. Item, quantumcumque aliquis sit sanctus et iustus, si potens est corpore, tenetur Quadragesimam ieiunare nec propter aliquam sanctitatem absolvitur ab Ecclesiae institutione: ergo pari ratione nec a confessione.

**Contra:**
1. Augustinus dicit, et habetur distinctione praecedenti[^4]: « Poenitentia perfecta ad baptismi puritatem conatur reducere »; seu possibile est, aliquem veram poenitentiam perficere pro peccato: ergo possibile est, ipsum redire ad innocentiam baptismalem. Sed habens innocentiam baptismalem non tenetur confiteri, quia purus est: ergo non videtur, quod omnes ad confessionem teneantur.

2. Item, confessio et Sacramentum poenitentiae est institutum propter hoc, ut recidivantes post baptismum possint resurgere[^5]; sed possibile est, quod aliquis conservet innocentiam baptismalem: ergo talis non tenetur confiteri.

3. Item, possibile est in multis, quod non habeant nisi venialia; sed venialia non tenetur confiteri homo, quia in illis decedens potest salvari, et sola contritione possunt deleri[^6]: ergo talis non tenetur confiteri, quamdiu in tali statu consistit.

4. Item, possibile est, quod aliquis ita intentus sit circa aeterna, quod non habeat remorsum de aliqua culpa; aut ergo talis tenetur confiteri, aut non. Si non, tunc non omnes obligantur; si tenetur et non habet conscientiam peccati, tenetur ad confitendum sive ad dicendum contra conscientiam, et ita mentiri; quod nefas est dicere: ergo non omnes obligantur.

> **Conclusio.** Omnes, sive boni sive mali, semel in anno tenentur confiteri, partim ex praecepto primae institutionis, partim ex superaddito in generali Concilio mandato.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod teneri ad confessionem peccatorum est dupliciter, scilicet ex institutione prima, quia instituta est sub praecepto, vel ex constitutione superaddita. Primum praeceptum datum fuit ab Apostolis et vulgatum fuit a Iacobo apostolo et episcopo Ierosolymitano, Iacobi quinto[^7]; secundum a patribus in generali Concilio et vulgatum fuit ab Innocentio tertio. Ratione primi mandati institutionis, quoniam instituta est directe contra mortale, tenebantur omnes confiteri, qui post

<!-- page 443 -->

baptismum peccaverant mortaliter. Ratione vero secundae institutionis tenentur omnes, saltem ad semel in anno.

Ratio autem huius institutionis triplex est. Prima est universalis indigentia. Omnes enim peccaverunt et egent gloria Dei[^8]. *Non est enim qui faciat bonum et non peccet*, Ecclesiastici septimo. Ideo Deum debet quilibet glorificare confitendo se peccatorem. Qui enim se peccatorem confitetur Deum glorificat, ostendens, se Dei gratia et misericordia indigere. — Secunda ratio fuit *sacrae communionis reverentia*: quia omnes tenentur in Pascha communicare, tam perfecti quam et alii; et tunc, quia Agnus paschalis cum solemnitate manducandus est, ut mundi essent manducantes et digni, oportuit, remedium praemitti probationis et purgationis[^9]; et hoc quidem est in confessione peccati. — Tertia ratio fuit *discretio gregis dominici*, ne lupi absconderentur in grege, qui manducarent agnos; ideo institutum est, ut vultus conscientiarum suarum sacerdotibus ostenderent[^10]. Et ne haeretici innocentiam palliarent et sub pelle innocentiae se absconderent; omnibus, quantumcumque sint innocentes, praeceptum est confiteri. Et ideo omnes, quantumcumque sint boni, tenentur confiteri semel in anno.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod poenitentia perfecta reducit ad innocentiam; dicendum, quod illud verum est de culpa, pro qua fuit illa poenitentia assumta[^11]; sed quamdiu sumus in hac vita, uni culpae succedit alia: et ideo oportet, quod renovetur confessio et poenitentia.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod instituta est propter recidivantes; dicendum, quod in baptismo deletur principaliter originale, delentur nihilominus venialia et mortalia; et ideo baptismus valet contra illa. Similiter de poenitentia intelligendum, quod principaliter instituta est propter mortalia, ad minus ipsa confessio; sed tamen valet contra omne peccatum, et ita contra omnem lapsum sive per mortale, sive per veniale. Licet igitur aliquis conservet gratiam baptismalem, in quantum delet originale et culpam mortalem; nullus tamen adeo est iustus, qui conservet quantum ad deletionem venialis, quia tota die iteratur[^12]: ideo expedit ei, si nunquam mandasset Ecclesia, confiteri; nunc autem non solum expedit, sed etiam necessario obligatur.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non tenemur venialia confiteri; dicendum, quod, sicut tactum est, tentio ad confessionem est dupliciter; vel ob vinculum peccati, vel propter vinculum solius praecepti. Venialia igitur non tenetur quis confiteri propter vinculum peccati, sed hoc solum est propter obligationem praecepti, quae obligat unumquemque ad confitendum. Et ideo, si non habet nisi venialia, tenetur illa confiteri; unde si haberet mortalia, quae confiteretur, non teneretur ad venialia.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eo qui non habet remorsum etc., dicendum, quod impossibile, credo secundum statum viatoris, quod aliquis unum diem vel septimanam transeat sine remorsu venialis; tamen quod totum annum transeat, hoc habeo magis pro impossibili, et vix credo, quod fuerit hoc donum in aliquo nisi in Christo et eius Matre; et ideo unusquisque vel habet conscientiam[^13], vel debet habere et omni hora petere: *Dimitte nobis* etc. Vix enim est, quod homo aliquamdiu sit in vita ista[^14] sine veniali, tum propter frequentiam, quia strepitus vitiorum et peccatorum venialium semper insonant auribus cordis nostri; tum propter ignorantiam, quia in multis venialiter peccamus et ignoramus et non consideramus; tum propter adhaerentiam, quoniam venialia ista sunt magnae adhaerentiae, maxime quando habetur affectio circa aliquod terrenum: et ideo, quantumcumque sit perfectus, corde debet recognoscere et ore confiteri, se peccatorem esse. Si tamen aliquis esset, qui non haberet peccatum propter superabundantem gratiam; dico, quod non teneretur ad illud mandatum, quia solis peccatoribus et viatoribus est datum; talis autem iam in caelis habitat. Si autem esset alius, qui non haberet propter ignorantiam vel negligentiam; non excusatur a mandato propter ignorantiam; non tamen tenetur aliquid dicere, quod non habeat in corde, sed tenetur recogitare et postea tenetur dicere. Hoc autem non credo posse contingere homini habenti intellectum et usum rationis nisi per specialissimam gratiam — quam etiam credo Apostolos non habuisse, quia venialiter peccaverunt, sicut dicit Gregorius — vel propter nimiam negligentiam. — Et quod sic patet, quod secundum communem legem, saltem semel in anno, omnes adulti tenentur confiteri universaliter, et omnes debent orare: *Dimitte nobis* etc.; nec est aliquis, qui in multis non possit se ipsum arguere.

<!-- page 444 -->

english:
### Article II. *On confession with respect to the obligation of the one performing it.*

Next, having treated the institution of confession, the obligation to it is inquired into. And concerning this three things are asked:

*First*, by comparison to the subject.
*Second*, by comparison to the time.
*Third*, by comparison to the manner.

### Question I. *Whether all adults, the good and the evil, are bound to confession.*

First, then, it is asked whether all adults, the good and the evil, are bound to confession. And that they are, it seems:

1. By the decretal *On Penances and Remissions* in the fifth book[^1]: « Every faithful person of either sex, after he has come to the years of discretion, should faithfully confess all his sins, at least once a year, to his own priest ». And that this is a precept is clear from the fact that a grave penalty is added, namely that « while living he be barred from entering the Church, and dying he be deprived of Christian burial ».

2. Likewise, in the first [chapter] of the first [Epistle] of John[^2]: *If we say that we have no sin, we are liars, and the truth is not in us*; he speaks of all in common: therefore everyone who says that he has no sin sins mortally: therefore each one is bound to recognize himself a sinner according to the form of the Church, which was handed down to sinners; but this is through confession: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it is a precept for all to pray, and no one however perfect is excused from the Lord's Prayer: therefore all are bound to say: *Forgive us our debts*[^3]; but the Lord instituted prayer not only for this, but indeed also confession; but prayer is a satisfactory work and presupposes confession: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, however holy and just anyone may be, if he is bodily able, he is bound to fast in Lent, nor is he excused from the institution of the Church on account of any holiness: therefore by like reasoning neither from confession.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine says, and it is found in the preceding distinction[^4]: « Perfect penance strives to bring one back to baptismal purity »; that is, it is possible for someone to perform true penance for a sin: therefore it is possible for him to return to baptismal innocence. But one having baptismal innocence is not bound to confess, since he is pure: therefore it does not seem that all are bound to confession.

2. Likewise, confession and the Sacrament of penance were instituted for this, that those relapsing after baptism might be able to rise again[^5]; but it is possible that someone preserve his baptismal innocence: therefore such a one is not bound to confess.

3. Likewise, it is possible in many that they have nothing but venial [sins]; but a man is not bound to confess venial sins, since dying in them he can be saved, and they can be wiped away by contrition alone[^6]: therefore such a one is not bound to confess, so long as he remains in such a state.

4. Likewise, it is possible that someone be so intent upon eternal things that he has no remorse for any fault; either, then, such a one is bound to confess, or not. If not, then not all are obliged; if he is bound and has no consciousness of sin, he is bound to confess, that is, to speak against conscience, and so to lie; which it is wicked to say: therefore not all are obliged.

> **Conclusion.** All, whether good or evil, are bound to confess once a year, partly from the precept of the first institution, partly from the mandate superadded in the general Council.

**I respond:** It must be said that being bound to the confession of sins is in two ways, namely from the first institution, since it was instituted under a precept, or from a superadded constitution. The first precept was given by the Apostles and was promulgated by James the apostle and bishop of Jerusalem, James fifth[^7]; the second by the fathers in the general Council and was promulgated by Innocent III. By reason of the first mandate of the institution, since it was instituted directly against mortal [sin], all were bound to confess who after

baptism had sinned mortally. But by reason of the second institution all are bound, at least once a year.

Now the reason of this institution is threefold. The first is *universal need*. For all have sinned and need the glory of God[^8]. *For there is no one who does good and does not sin*, Ecclesiastes seven. Therefore each ought to glorify God by confessing himself a sinner. For he who confesses himself a sinner glorifies God, showing that he needs God's grace and mercy. — The second reason was *reverence for the sacred communion*: because all are bound to communicate at Easter, both the perfect and the others; and then, because the paschal Lamb must be eaten with solemnity, so that those eating might be clean and worthy, it was fitting that a remedy of testing and purgation be sent ahead[^9]; and this indeed is in the confession of sin. — The third reason was *the discernment of the Lord's flock*, lest wolves be hidden in the flock who would devour the lambs; therefore it was instituted that they should show the faces of their consciences to the priests[^10]. And lest heretics cloak their innocence and hide themselves under the skin of innocence; it is a precept for all, however innocent they may be, to confess. And therefore all, however good they may be, are bound to confess once a year.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that perfect penance brings one back to innocence; it must be said that this is true of the fault for which that penance was undertaken[^11]; but as long as we are in this life, one fault succeeds another: and therefore it is necessary that confession and penance be renewed.

2. To that which is objected, that it was instituted for those relapsing; it must be said that in baptism original sin is principally blotted out, yet nonetheless venial and mortal [sins] are blotted out; and therefore baptism avails against them. Likewise it is to be understood of penance, that it was principally instituted for mortal [sins], at least confession itself; but nonetheless it avails against every sin, and so against every lapse whether through mortal or through venial [sin]. Although, then, someone may preserve baptismal grace, inasmuch as it blots out original sin and mortal fault; yet no one is so just that he preserves it as regards the blotting out of venial [sin], because it is repeated all day long[^12]: therefore it is expedient for him, even if the Church had never commanded it, to confess; but now it is not only expedient, but he is also necessarily obliged.

3. To that which is objected, that we are not bound to confess venial [sins]; it must be said that, as has been touched on, the being-bound to confession is in two ways; either on account of the bond of sin, or on account of the bond of the precept alone. Venial [sins], then, one is not bound to confess on account of the bond of sin, but this is only on account of the obligation of the precept, which obliges everyone to confess. And therefore, if he has nothing but venial [sins], he is bound to confess them; whence if he had mortal [sins], which he would confess, he would not be bound as to the venial ones.

4. To that which is objected concerning him who has no remorse etc., it must be said that it is impossible, I believe, according to the state of a wayfarer, that anyone pass one day or a week without remorse for a venial [sin]; yet that he pass a whole year, this I hold rather as impossible, and I scarcely believe that this was a gift in anyone except in Christ and his Mother; and therefore each one either has conscience[^13], or ought to have it and at every hour to pray: *Forgive us* etc. For it is scarcely the case that a man be for any while in this life[^14] without venial [sin], both on account of frequency, because the din of vices and venial sins always resounds in the ears of our heart; and on account of ignorance, because in many things we sin venially and are ignorant and do not consider; and on account of attachment, since these venial [sins] are of great attachment, especially when there is affection toward something earthly: and therefore, however perfect he may be, he ought to recognize in his heart and confess with his mouth that he is a sinner. If, however, there were someone who had no sin on account of superabundant grace; I say that he would not be bound to that mandate, since it was given only to sinners and wayfarers; but such a one already dwells in heaven. But if there were another who had none on account of ignorance or negligence; he is not excused from the mandate on account of ignorance; yet he is not bound to say anything that he does not have in his heart, but he is bound to reconsider and afterward is bound to speak. But this I do not believe can happen to a man having intellect and the use of reason except by a most special grace — which I also believe the Apostles did not have, since they sinned venially, as Gregory says — or on account of excessive negligence. — And thus it is clear that according to the common law, at least once a year, all adults are bound to confess universally, and all ought to pray: *Forgive us* etc.; nor is there anyone who in many things cannot accuse himself.

la: Tit. 38. c. 12. [Decretal., lib. V, *de Poenitentiis et remissionibus*.]

en: Title 38, c. 12 [Decretals, book V, *On Penances and Remissions*].

la: Vers. 8, ubi Vulgata, quam sequuntur edd., post *mendaces sumus* addit *ipsi nos seducimus*.

en: Verse 8, where the Vulgate, which the editions follow, after *we are liars* adds *we deceive ourselves*.

la: Matth. 6, 12. — De oratione, quatenus est opus satisfactorium, dictum est supra d. 15. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 3.

en: Matt. 6:12. — On prayer, insofar as it is a satisfactory work, it was said above d. 15. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. and a. 2. q. 3.

la: Sext. d. XV. tit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: [In the] preceding [distinction], d. XV [under] the heading of the Master, c. 7.

la: Cfr. a. 1. q. 3. in corp.

en: Cf. a. 1. q. 3. in the body.

la: Vide infra p. III. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See below p. III. a. 2. q. 1.

la: Vers. 16. Cfr. a. 1. q. 3. — Decretum Innocentii habetur supra in fundam. 1. — Inferius pro *peccaverant* multi codd. et ed. 1 *peccaverunt*.

en: [James 5,] verse 16. Cf. a. 1. q. 3. — The decree of Innocent is found above in the first fundamentum. — Below, for *had sinned* many codices and the first edition [read] *sinned*.

la: Rom. 3, 23. — Seq. locus est Eccle. 7, 21: *Non est enim homo iustus in terra, qui faciat* etc. — Inferius pro *debet* codd. FG *tenetur*.

en: Rom. 3:23. — The following passage is Eccles. 7:21: *For there is no just man on earth who does* etc. — Below, for *ought* the codices FG [read] *is bound*.

la: Respicitur Matth. 7, 15: *Veniunt ad vos in vestimentis ovium, intrinsecus autem sunt lupi rapaces*. Prov. 27, 23: *Diligenter agnosce vultum pecoris tui tuosque greges considera*. [Cfr. I Cor. 11, 28: *Probet autem se ipsum homo* etc.]

en: Reference is made to Matt. 7:15: *They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves*. Prov. 27:23: *Diligently know the countenance of your cattle, and consider your own flocks*. [Cf. 1 Cor. 11:28: *But let a man prove himself* etc.]

la: Vide supra d. 15. p. II. dub. 10.

en: See above d. 15. p. II. dub. 10.

la: Plurimi codd. *iterantur*, incongrue, nisi cum cod. aa pro *venialis* substituantur *venialium* (pro *quia* codd. IK *quae*).

en: Very many codices [read] *are repeated*, incongruously, unless with codex aa for *of the venial [sin]* one substitutes *of the venial [sins]* (for *because* codices IK [read] *which*).

la: Supple: peccati venialis.

en: Supply: of venial sin.

la: Edd. *quamdiu sit in vita ista, sit*, cod. E *aliquando diu sit in vita ista*.

en: The editions [read] *as long as he is in this life, he is*; codex E [reads] *that at some time he be long in this life*.

la: Vide supra d. 16. p. II. dub. 3. Superius pro *et non* cod. Z *si non*. Mox post *quantumcumque* edd. supplent *quis*. Subinde codd. omittunt *peccatum*.

en: See above d. 16. p. II. dub. 3. Above, for *and not* codex Z [reads] *if not*. Just after *however much* the editions supply *anyone*. Then the codices omit *sin*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Conclusiones 1. quaestionis sunt communes. Solutio auctoris ad 3, quod in casu illo aliquis lege ecclesiastica ad confitenda venialia teneatur (cfr. infra p. III. a. 2. q. 1.), refertur etiam a S. Thoma (hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. ad 3, et Suppl. q. 6. a. 3. ad 3.); qui etiam aliam opinionem ut probabilem affert, quod talis vi praecepti ecclesiastici tantum teneatur, ut se sacerdoti repraesentet et ostendat, se absque conscientia mortalis esse. De hoc casu potius speculativo adhuc nihil determinatum est.

De ipsa 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 1. a. 1. § 1-3, a. 2. § 2-5. — Scot., hic q. unica n. 18. seqq. — S. Thom., artt. citt. — B. Albert., supra d. 16. a. 12. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. quaestiunc. 1. 3. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 8.

**II.** Quoad 2. quaestionem etiam nunc communiter tenetur, quod de tempore, quando post peccatum mortale perpetratum urgeat obligatio confessionis, generalis regula dari nequeat. Guliel. Parisien. quidem docuit, teste Dionysio Carth., quod « nec ad modicum nec ad momentum licet alicui confessionem differre ». S. Alphonsus dicit, quod gravis esse videatur obligatio non differendi ultra mensem reconciliationem cum Deo sive per actum contritionis cum proposito confitendi, sive per Sacramenti perceptionem. Moderate et sapienter S. Bonav. hic loquitur et ad mentem S. Thomae, nisi quod Angelicus non approbat, quod religiosi ad confessionem prius et magis obligentur, quia non « tenentur ad alia quam alii homines, nisi ad quae ex voto se obligaverunt; cuiusmodi non est confessio ».

De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 1. § 1-3. — Scot., loc. cit. n. 24. — S. Thom., hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4; Suppl. q. 6. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 5. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 6. — Durand., hic q. 10.

**III.** Quaestio 3. manifeste confirmat, S. Bonav. docere, sicut baptismum, sic Sacramentum poenitentiae esse Sacramentum mortuorum, ut dicunt, et « esse ordinatum ad gratiam acquirendam sive obtinendam » cum eadem dispositione (scilicet attritionis), quae sufficit ad iustificationem adulti in baptismo.

De hac 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3. § 7. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 4. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 9. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Durand., hic q. 13. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 8.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The conclusions of the 1st question are common. The author's solution to [objection] 3, that in that case someone is bound by ecclesiastical law to confess venial [sins] (cf. below p. III. a. 2. q. 1.), is reported also by St. Thomas (here q. 3. a. 1. quaestiuncula 3. ad 3, and Suppl. q. 6. a. 3. ad 3.); who also brings forward as probable another opinion, that such a one is bound by force of the ecclesiastical precept only to present himself to the priest and show that he is without consciousness of a mortal [sin]. On this rather speculative case nothing has yet been determined.

On the 1st question itself: Alex. of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 18. m. 1. a. 1. § 1-3, a. 2. § 2-5. — Scotus, here q. unica n. 18 ff. — St. Thomas, the articles cited. — Bl. Albert, above d. 16. a. 12. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 4. quaestiuncula 1. 3. 4. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2. q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following q. here q. 8.

**II.** As to the 2nd question, even now it is commonly held that concerning the time when, after a mortal sin has been committed, the obligation of confession presses, no general rule can be given. William of Paris indeed taught, on the testimony of Dionysius the Carthusian, that « it is not lawful for anyone to defer confession even for a little or for a moment ». St. Alphonsus says that the obligation seems grave of not deferring beyond a month reconciliation with God either by an act of contrition with the purpose of confessing, or by the reception of the Sacrament. Moderately and wisely St. Bonaventure speaks here, and according to the mind of St. Thomas, except that the Angelic Doctor does not approve that religious are bound to confession sooner and more, since they are not « bound to other things than other men, except to those to which they have bound themselves by vow; of which kind confession is not ».

On the 2nd question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. a. 1. § 1-3. — Scotus, loc. cit. n. 24. — St. Thomas, here loc. cit. quaestiuncula 4; Suppl. q. 6. a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 5. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3. q. 6. — Durandus, here q. 10.

**III.** Question 3 manifestly confirms that St. Bonaventure teaches that, like baptism, so the Sacrament of penance is a Sacrament of the dead, as they say, and « is ordained to acquiring or obtaining grace » with the same disposition (namely of attrition) which suffices for the justification of an adult in baptism.

On this 3rd question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. a. 3. § 7. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 4. quaestiuncula 1; Suppl. q. 9. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2. — Durandus, here q. 13. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 8.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 49652–49900), the running prose taken from OCR and the cascade-shattered Respondeo / Conclusio / scholion verified column-by-column against PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p44{2,3,4}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (offset pdf = printed + 20; vol4 column split x≈1880). Running heads confirm "DIST. XVII. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I" on pp. 442–443 and "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV. / SCHOLION." on p. 444. The Articulus II opener ("Consequenter… quaeruntur tria") folds into this q1 per the locked chunking convention.

**Scholion ownership.** The Article II scholion sits on p. 444 (its own `SCHOLION.` header). It is article-level, covering all three questions: section **I** covers this q1 (with its source-listing "De ipsa 1. quaestione"); section **II** covers q2 ("De 2. quaestione"); section **III** covers q3 ("De hac 3. quaestione"). Rendered IN FULL here. **q2 (bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a2-q2) and q3 (a2-q3) should point to this chunk for their scholion sections** (sections II and III respectively) rather than re-render it.

**Page-split.** Body spans pp. 442–443 (Respondeo begins on 442, continues atop 443; replies finish on 443R). Footers: p. 442 carries the body fundamenta/contra marks (Tit. 38; Vulg. var.; Matt. 6,12) plus the Respondeo footers (Sext. d. XV; Cfr a.1.q.3; Vide infra; Vers. 16). P. 443 carries footers ¹–¹⁰ for the *Ratio* + replies. P. 444 carries the scholion + its own footers (Libr. I de Sacram.; Cfr Matt 25,13; Vide supra pag. 103; Scil. Concilii Lateranensis) — those four belong to the q2 body that begins on p. 444R, NOT to this chunk, so they migrate to q2.

**Hand-off to q2.** QUAESTIO II ("Utrum peccator statim, cum potest, teneatur confiteri") begins on p. 444 R-column (raw line 49901). Its four page-444 footers (Hugo de S. Victore *de Sacram.*; Matth. 25,13; Vide supra pag. 103 nota 11; Concilii Lateranensis) belong to q2's body, not here. Scholion section **II** above is q2's scholion.

**[?] flags.** None. OCR was clean enough (cross-checked against PDF) that no readings remain genuinely ambiguous. The phrase "tentio ad confessionem" in reply 3 is an OCR truncation of "[teneri / obliga]tio ad confessionem"; rendered as "the being-bound to confession" per the parallel Respondeo phrasing ("teneri ad confessionem est dupliciter").


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 17, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 444 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum peccator statim, cum potest, teneatur confiteri.*

Secundo quantum ad tempus quaeritur, utrum peccator statim, cum potest, teneatur confiteri. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Hugo de sancto Victore[^1]: « Si necessitas non est, quae praetendatur, contemptus non excusatur »; sed cum se offert confitendi opportunitas, nulla potest praetendi necessitas: ergo non excusatur a contemptu.

2. Item, quanto homo plus permanet in peccato, tanto est inhabilior: ergo quanto citius confitetur, tanto est habilior ad resurgendum; sed constat, quod aliquando tenetur confiteri, et non nisi quando est habilior: si ergo tanto habilior, quanto citius; ergo quam citius potest, tenetur confiteri.

3. Item, aegrotans morbo corporali et periculoso, qui approximat morti et ignorat mortem, tenetur quaerere medicum et consulere sine dilatione et statim, si offert se opportunitas: ergo cum maior sit morbus spiritualis, et maius periculum, et dies mortis ignoretur[^2]; videtur, quod sine dilatione tenetur confiteri.

4. Item, iste qui est in gratia, tenetur nunquam cadere: ergo ab oppositis, iste qui est in culpa, non reportat de malo commodum[^3], tenetur nunquam in culpa esse: ergo si tenetur nunquam in culpa esse, et hoc non potest esse nisi resurgendo; antequam resurgat, tenetur semper resurgere: ergo statim, ex quo peccavit. Sed confessio est ad relevandum a peccato: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Praeceptum affirmativum non obligat ad semper, sed ad aliquod tempus determinatum; sed quandocumque rei indeterminatae additur determinatio temporis, non tenetur ante illud tempus quis observare; sed in mandato secundo[^4] de confessione dicitur, quod debet confiteri semel in anno: ergo videtur, quod non sit transgressor, sive omittat, sive differat confiteri usque ad annum.

2. Item, si tenetur ad statim, pari ratione in alio nunc, et cum sint nunc infinita in tempore[^5]; tunc infinities peccaret, si omitteret; sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod tenetur statim, cum recognoscit offensam; *contra:* esto quod non recogitet, non tenetur; sed hoc est malum et negligentia: ergo reportat commodum de malitia.

3. Item, in eadem decretali[^6] datur mandatum de eucharistia et sub eadem poena; sed constat, quod nemo peccat omittendo, si differat sumere eu-

<!-- page 445 -->

charistiam usque ad Pascha: ergo pari ratione de confessione.

4. Item, licitum est peccatori quaerere sacerdotem discretum et exspectare: ergo licitum est etiam quaerere tempus idoneum et exspectare ad poenitendum et satisfaciendum; sed hoc est tempus Quadragesimae ad hoc institutum: ergo videtur, quod sine peccato liceat exspectare Quadragesimam.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** *Hi quoque, qui non tantum ex ecclesiastica institutione, sed etiam ex gravi transgressione ad confitendum tenentur, sub gravi non obligantur ad statim actu confitendum nisi in casu secundum varias circumstantias.*

**Respondeo:** Circa hoc notandum, quod est loqui de confessione dupliciter: vel quantum ad propositum interius, vel quantum ad verbum exterius. Si quantum ad propositum interius, sic communiter conceditur, quod tenetur proponere confiteri, quando[^7] et conteri, quia sine proposito confitendi et emendandi non dimittitur peccatum, sicut nec sine contritione. Ad hoc autem tenetur, quando recogitat culpam commissam et Dei offensam, vel quando tempus se offert, in quo recogitare debet, sicut in hora mortis, vel periculo, vel aliquo alio simili.

Sed quando teneatur progredi in actum, hic diversimode opinantur diversi. — Aliqui enim dicunt, quod cum actus confitendi non sit necessarius ad iustificationem — quia per contritionem est iustificatio[^8] — et ita confessio solum sit necessaria, quia est in praecepto, et Ecclesia non exigat ante Pascha; quod ante non tenetur, nisi periculum mortis immineat. Huius autem dilationis dicunt concessam esse licentiam ex decretali illa in generali Concilio edita[^9]: « Omnis utriusque sexus » etc.

Aliorum opinio est, quod sicut tenetur ad propositum confitendi, quando se offert opportunitas interior; sic tenetur ad opus, quando se offert exterior; aut enim propositum non est efficax, aut cadit a proposito efficaci, si, quando se offert opportunitas, in opus non exit. Et dicunt, quod se offert opportunitas, quando habet discreti sacerdotis copiam et peccati commissi memoriam. Nec obstat decretalis, quia non dat licentiam differendi, sed prohibet negligentiam et dilationem; sicut Ecclesia[^10] prohibet, ne quis ultra annum in excommunicatione remaneat; non tamen dat licentiam remanendi usque ad horam illam. Similiter, si imperator dat alicui personae infami privilegium, ut non agatur contra eum, sicut contra infamem; non propter hoc liberat ab infamiae nota, sed solummodo a poena, ut contra ipsum non agatur. Sic decretalis illa non liberat a tentione et offensa, sed ne Ecclesia neget alicui ingressum in ecclesiam, vel etiam sepulturam, sicut facit post. Si ergo ante conditionem decretalis tenebatur confiteri, quando se offerebat opportunitas; sic videtur, quod post eius conditionem, quia decretalis non pro negligentibus, sed contra negligentes est edita.

Quae autem istarum opinionum verior sit, dubium est et difficile iudicare. Tamen ad veritatis clariorem intelligentiam distingui potest, quando quaeritur, ad quando obligatur fidelis confiteri, secundum duplicem obligationem quae superius[^11] tacta est, et secundum duplex mandatum diversimode respondendum est. Quidam enim ad confessionem obligantur non ex culpa commissa, sed ex institutione ecclesiastica, utpote illi qui non habent mortalia peccata. Tales differre possunt usque ad Pascha, quia mandatum illius decretalis non obligat, nisi sicut obligat ad eucharistiam, ad quam praeparat confessio sacerdoti facta. Quidam vero non tantum obligantur ex ecclesiastica institutione, sed ex propria transgressione; et hi tenentur ex Sacramenti institutione. De talibus generaliter asserere, quod possunt usque ad Pascha differre, videtur mihi periculosum; similiter, quod teneantur semper, quando offert se opportunitas, confiteri; videtur valde durum. Ideo videtur rationabiliter sentiendum medium, scilicet quod opportunitas loci, temporis et sacerdotis tripliciter potest se ante Pascha offerre: aut ita, quod timetur, ne unquam se offerat, sicut est in his qui graviter infirmantur, et tales tenentur absque dubitatione[^12] ad confessionem; aut ita, quod maior opportunitas exspectatur vel quantum ad tempus, vel quantum ad sacerdotem, et sic potest differri sine aliquo peccato; aut ita, quod nunquam rationabiliter maior opportunitas exspectatur, nec quantum ad sacerdotem nec quantum ad tempus, et tunc credo sine praeiudicio, quod tenetur.

Et ideo aliter censendum est hic de religioso, aliter de laico. Nam religioso totum tempus vitae est tempus poenitentiae; et ideo, habita copia sacerdotis, si peccavit mortaliter, credo, quod tenetur sine mora confiteri et ad ipsum recurrere; et intelligatur sine mora, sicut ratio recta determinavit. — Laicus vero rationabiliter potest exspectare tem-

<!-- page 446 -->

pus quadragesimale, quod est tempus poenitentiae. Unde cum tempus sit magis opportunum eis ad satisfaciendum et confitendum, si exspectent, rationabile est iudicare, quod non peccent, dum tamen proponant firmiter tunc temporis confiteri. — De clericis autem iudicare non audeo; consilium tamen eis credo, quod omnes qui cadunt per mortale, quam citius possunt, confiteantur. Non enim videtur vere contritus qui tam longo tempore vulnus peccati portat occultum. Si autem obiicias mihi, quod status non obligat aliquem nisi per votum; respondeo, quod statu non obligat, sed mandatum omnibus datum; ad nunc autem, vel ad tunc obligat opportunitas, quae diversimode offert se diversis. Et illud veritatem habet in omnibus affirmativis, quod ad aliquod tempus obligatur unus, ad quod quidem tempus alter non obligatur, sicut patet in honore parentum. Fatendum est igitur, quod mandatum illud nullum obligat ad statim nisi in casu, ut visum est.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod contemptus non excusatur; dicendum, quod ipse vocat necessitatem, non tantum inevitabilem[^13], sed necessitatem-commoditatem. — Vel dicendum, quod loquitur de illis qui de hac vita sine Sacramentis decedunt, qui non excusantur, si tunc possunt Sacramentum recipere.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod citius confitens est habilior; dicendum, quod homo potest resurgere a peccato ante confessionem, ut visum est; et ideo, cum deletum sit per contritionem, non sequitur illud.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de aegrotante morbo corporali, dicendum, quod si aliam videat viam curationis, non tenetur medicum consulere, vel etiam, si exspectat tempus magis congruum; et quia ita est in proposito: ideo etc.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tenetur nunquam cadere; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia teneri ad non cadendum est tentio praecepti negativi, quod obligat ad semper; sed teneri ad resurgendum est tentio affirmativi, quod non obligat ad semper.

**Ad oppositum:**

Ad illud quod obiicitur ad oppositum, dicendum, quod quantum est de mandato illius decretalis, non obligantur ante Pascha, sicut probant illae rationes; obligantur tamen aliqui ex necessitate institutionis Sacramenti[^14].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the sinner is bound to confess at once, when he can.*

Secondly, as to the time it is asked whether the sinner is bound to confess at once, when he can. And that he is, it seems.

1. Hugh of Saint Victor[^1]: « If there is no necessity that can be alleged, contempt is not excused »; but when the opportunity of confessing presents itself, no necessity can be alleged: therefore he is not excused from contempt.

2. Likewise, the longer a man remains in sin, the more unfit he is: therefore the sooner he confesses, the more fit he is for rising again; but it is established that one is at some time bound to confess, and only when he is more fit: if therefore he is the more fit, the sooner [he confesses]; therefore as soon as he can, he is bound to confess.

3. Likewise, one sick with a bodily and dangerous illness, who is approaching death and does not know [the hour of] death, is bound to seek a physician and consult [him] without delay and at once, if opportunity presents itself: therefore since the spiritual illness is greater, and the danger greater, and the day of death unknown[^2]; it seems that he is bound to confess without delay.

4. Likewise, he who is in grace is bound never to fall: therefore conversely, he who is in fault — that he may not draw advantage from evil[^3] — is bound never to be in fault: therefore if he is bound never to be in fault, and this cannot be except by rising again; before he rises again, he is bound always to rise again: therefore at once, from the moment he sinned. But confession is for relieving from sin: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. An affirmative precept does not bind for all time, but for some determinate time; but whenever a determination of time is added to an indeterminate thing, no one is bound to observe it before that time; but in the second commandment[^4] concerning confession it is said that one ought to confess once a year: therefore it seems that he is not a transgressor, whether he omits or whether he defers to confess up to a year.

2. Likewise, if he is bound to [confess] at once, by parity of reasoning [he is bound] in another moment, and since there are now infinite [moments] in time[^5]; he would then sin infinitely, if he were to omit [it]; but this is unfitting: therefore etc. If you say that he is bound at once, when he recognizes the offense; *on the contrary:* suppose he does not bethink himself, he is not bound; but this is an evil and a negligence: therefore he draws advantage from malice.

3. Likewise, in the same decretal[^6] the command is given concerning the Eucharist and under the same penalty; but it is established that no one sins by omitting [it], if he defers to receive the Eucharist up to Easter: therefore by parity of reasoning concerning confession.

4. Likewise, it is lawful for the sinner to seek a discreet priest and wait: therefore it is also lawful to seek a suitable time and wait for doing penance and making satisfaction; but this is the time of Lent instituted for this: therefore it seems that it is lawful without sin to wait for Lent.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** *These too, who are bound to confess not only from ecclesiastical institution but also from grave transgression, are not bound under [pain of] grave [sin] to confess actually at once, except in a case according to the various circumstances.*

**I respond:** Concerning this it must be noted that confession may be spoken of in two ways: either as to the inward purpose, or as to the outward word. If as to the inward purpose, then it is commonly granted that one is bound to purpose to confess, when[^7] and to be contrite, because without the purpose of confessing and amending sin is not remitted, just as not without contrition. To this, moreover, one is bound, when he calls to mind the fault committed and the offense against God, or when a time presents itself in which he ought to recall [it], as in the hour of death, or in danger, or in some other similar [circumstance].

But as to when one is bound to proceed to the act, here different [men] hold differently. — For some say that, since the act of confessing is not necessary for justification — because justification is through contrition[^8] — and so confession is necessary only because it is in the precept, and the Church does not require [it] before Easter; that he is not bound beforehand, unless the danger of death is imminent. And of this delay they say that license has been granted by that decretal issued in the general Council[^9]: « Everyone of either sex » etc.

The opinion of others is that, just as one is bound to the purpose of confessing, when the inward opportunity presents itself; so one is bound to the work, when the outward [opportunity] presents itself; for either the purpose is not efficacious, or one falls away from an efficacious purpose, if, when the opportunity presents itself, it does not issue into the work. And they say that the opportunity presents itself, when one has an abundance of a discreet priest and the memory of the sin committed. Nor does the decretal stand in the way, because it does not give license for deferring, but forbids negligence and delay; just as the Church[^10] forbids that anyone remain in excommunication beyond a year; yet it does not give license for remaining up to that hour. Likewise, if an emperor gives to some infamous person the privilege that there be no proceeding against him, as against an infamous [person]; he does not on this account free [him] from the mark of infamy, but only from the penalty, that there be no proceeding against him. So that decretal does not free from the holding [to confess] and the offense, but [provides] that the Church not deny to anyone entrance into the church, or even burial, as it does afterward. If therefore before the framing of the decretal he was bound to confess, when the opportunity offered itself; so it seems that [he is bound likewise] after its framing, because the decretal was issued not for the negligent, but against the negligent.

But which of these opinions is the truer is doubtful and difficult to judge. Nevertheless, for the clearer understanding of the truth, a distinction can be made, when it is asked to when the faithful one is obliged to confess, [namely] that according to the twofold obligation which was touched on above[^11], and according to the twofold command, the answer is to be given in different ways. For some are obliged to confession not from a fault committed, but from ecclesiastical institution, as those who do not have mortal sins. Such [persons] can defer up to Easter, because the command of that decretal does not bind, except as it binds to the Eucharist, for which confession made to a priest prepares. But some are obliged not only from ecclesiastical institution, but from their own transgression; and these are bound from the institution of the Sacrament. To assert generally of such [persons] that they can defer up to Easter seems to me dangerous; likewise, that they are bound always to confess, when opportunity presents itself; seems very hard. Therefore it seems that one should reasonably hold the mean, namely that the opportunity of place, time, and priest can present itself before Easter in three ways: either so that it is feared lest it ever present itself, as is the case in those who are gravely ill, and such are bound without doubt[^12] to confession; or so that a greater opportunity is awaited, whether as to time or as to priest, and thus [confession] can be deferred without any sin; or so that a greater opportunity is never reasonably awaited, neither as to priest nor as to time, and then I believe, without prejudice, that he is bound.

And therefore one thing must be judged here of a religious, another of a layman. For to a religious the whole time of life is a time of penitence; and therefore, an abundance of a priest being had, if he has sinned mortally, I believe that he is bound to confess without delay and to have recourse to him; and let "without delay" be understood as right reason has determined. — But a layman can reasonably wait for the Lenten time, which is a time of penitence. Hence since the time is more opportune for them for making satisfaction and confessing, if they wait, it is reasonable to judge that they do not sin, provided they firmly purpose to confess at that time. — But of clerics I do not dare to judge; yet I believe [it] my counsel to them that all who fall through mortal [sin] should confess as soon as they can. For he does not seem truly contrite who for so long a time carries the wound of sin hidden. But if you object to me that the state does not bind anyone except by vow; I respond that the state does not bind, but the command given to all; and to this [moment] or to that the opportunity binds, which presents itself in different ways to different [persons]. And that holds true in all affirmative [precepts], that one [person] is bound for some time, to which time indeed another is not bound, as is clear in the honor of parents. It must therefore be confessed that that command binds no one to [confess] at once except in a case, as has been seen.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that contempt is not excused; it must be said that he calls "necessity" not only the unavoidable[^13], but a necessity-of-convenience. — Or it must be said that he speaks of those who depart from this life without the Sacraments, who are not excused, if they can then receive the Sacrament.

2. To that which is objected, that one confessing sooner is more fit; it must be said that a man can rise again from sin before confession, as has been seen; and therefore, since it has been wiped away through contrition, that does not follow.

3. To that which is objected concerning one sick with a bodily illness, it must be said that if he sees another way of cure, he is not bound to consult a physician, or even, if he awaits a more fitting time; and because it is so in the matter at hand: therefore etc.

4. To that which is objected, that he is bound never to fall; it must be said that it is not alike: because to be bound to not falling is the holding of a negative precept, which binds for all time; but to be bound to rising again is the holding of an affirmative [precept], which does not bind for all time.

**To the contrary:**

To that which is objected for the contrary, it must be said that, as far as concerns the command of that decretal, they are not obliged before Easter, as those reasons prove; yet some are obliged from the necessity of the institution of the Sacrament[^14].

---

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 3.

en: [Hugh of Saint Victor,] Book I *On the Sacraments*, part IX, c. 3.

la: Cfr. Matth. 25, 13. — Pro *morbus* codd. *aegritudo corporalis*.

en: Cf. Matthew 25:13. — For *morbus* the codices [read] *aegritudo corporalis* (bodily sickness).

la: Vide supra pag. 103, nota 11. — Inferius pro *quam resurgat* cod. B *quamvis nunquam resurgat,* edd. ibi legunt: *nisi resurgendo: ergo statim, ex quo peccavit, tenetur, quia confessio est ad resurgendum a peccato: ergo etc.*

en: See above, p. 103, note 11. — Below, for *quam resurgat* codex B [reads] *quamvis nunquam resurgat* (although he never rises again); the editions there read: *nisi resurgendo: ergo statim, ex quo peccavit, tenetur, quia confessio est ad resurgendum a peccato: ergo etc.* (except by rising again: therefore at once, from the moment he sinned, he is bound, because confession is for rising again from sin: therefore etc.).

la: Scil. Concilii Lateranensis sub Innoc. III. Ratio, propter quam hoc mandatum vocatur *secundum* (edd. omittunt *secundo*), insinuata est quaest. praeced. — Inferius post *sive differat* codd. I K repetunt *quis.*

en: Namely [the canon] of the Lateran Council under Innocent III. The reason for which this command is called *the second* (the editions omit *secundo*) was indicated in the preceding question. — Below, after *sive differat* the codices I K repeat *quis.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., VI. Phys. text. 18. seqq. et text. 53. (c. 2. et 6.). — Inferius pro *si omitteret* communissima lectio codd. est *et omitteret* i. e. reus esset peccati omissionis. Subinde pro *non recogitet* codd. F G *non recognoscat.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* VI, text 18 ff. and text 53 (cc. 2 and 6). — Below, for *si omitteret* the most common reading of the codices is *et omitteret*, i.e., he would be guilty of the sin of omission. Thereupon for *non recogitet* codices F G [read] *non recognoscat.*

la: Concilii Lateran. sub Innocentio III. C. *Omnis utriusque sexus.* Vide supra d. 12. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.

en: [The canon] of the Lateran Council under Innocent III, c. *Omnis utriusque sexus.* See above, d. 12, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the body.

la: Ut insinuatur hic; in lit. Magistri, c. 4. Vide infra p. III. dub. 3. — Inferius pro *poenitendum* Vat. *confitendum.*

en: As is implied here; in the Master's text, c. 4. See below, p. III, dub. 3. — Below, for *poenitendum* the Vatican [edition reads] *confitendum.*

la: Edd. cum aliquibus codd. omittunt *quando.*

en: The editions with some codices omit *quando.*

la: Ut ostensum est supra p. I. a. 1. q. 4. — Inferius pro *quod ante* cod. *quod accedere.*

en: As was shown above, p. I, a. 1, q. 4. — Below, for *quod ante* a codex [reads] *quod accedere.*

la: Vide quaest. praeced. fundam. 4. — Aliquanto inferius pro *aut enim* codd. I K *aliter enim.*

en: See the preceding question, fundamentum 4. — Somewhat below, for *aut enim* codices I K [read] *aliter enim.*

la: Cfr. C. *Rursus constitutum est* (36.) et seq., C. 11. q. 3. — Quaest. praeced. — Ante *quando obligatur* solae edd. omittunt *ad.* Inferius pro *institutione* codd. I K *constitutione.*

en: Cf. canon *Rursus constitutum est* (36) and the following, C. 11, q. 3. — [Likewise] the preceding question. — Before *quando obligatur* the editions alone omit *ad.* Below, for *institutione* codices I K [read] *constitutione.*

la: In cod. X secunda manus substituit *dilatione,* edd. verbo *tenentur* praefigunt *ante.*

en: In codex X a second hand substitutes *dilatione*; the editions prefix *ante* to the word *tenentur.*

la: Cod. U *inevitabilitatem.* Mox pro *necessitatem* edd. *necessitas.*

en: Codex U [reads] *inevitabilitatem.* Presently for *necessitatem* the editions [read] *necessitas.*

la: Et C. *Cum contumacia* (7.), de Haereticis (lib. V. tit. 2.) in VI. — Edd. etiam, quae et inferius pro *eum* et *ipsum* exhibent *eam* et *ipsam.*

en: And c. *Cum contumacia* (7), *On Heretics* (book V, tit. 2) in the Sext. — The editions also, which both here and below for *eum* and *ipsum* exhibit *eam* and *ipsam.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 49901–50113), with PDF column-band verification (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p44{4,5,6}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) of the cascade-prone Respondeo, the distinctio of opinions, and the per-page footers. Running head verified: "DIST. XVII. P. II. ART. II. OUAEST. II." with printed page 445 and "446 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Scholion disposition.** This question renders **no scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). The Articulus II scholion is rendered together with q1 (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a2-q1`). Confirmed by the **q3** apparatus on p.446 ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."), which shows the Quaracchi scholion apparatus for this article attaches to the preceding question(s), not to q2.

**Page-split map.** Body spans printed pp. 444–446. q2 ends mid-page-446 (left column, "...ex necessitate institutionis Sacramenti"); QUAESTIO III ("Tertio quaeritur de obligatione ad confessionem quantum ad modum...") begins immediately after on p.446 and is handed off to `bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a2-q3`. The p.446 footers numbered 1–4 (and beyond) belong to **q3**, not to this chunk — they were left for q3. All q2 apparatus comes from the p.444 footers (1–6) and p.445 footers (1–8).

**[?] flags.** None. The OCR base was clean and corroborated by the PDF bands throughout; conventional OCR substitutions silently corrected (e.g. *ulrura/utrura→utrum*, *stalitn/stalim→statim*, *conteinplus→contemptus*, *coramodum→commodum*, *decrelali→decretali*, *raortalia→mortalia*, *senliendmn→sentiendum*, *exspectai're→exspectare*).

**Hand-off to q3.** Pick up at raw line 50114 / printed p.446. q3 title opener: "Tertio quaeritur de obligatione ad confessionem quantum ad modum, et quaeritur, utrum ex caritate..." (running head "An quis quoad modum obligetur confiteri ex caritate"). q3 owns p.446 footers 1–4+ (note 2 = "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." cross-referencing the a2 scholion held with q1).

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. 17, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 446 -->

### Quaestio III. *An quis quoad modum obligetur confiteri ex caritate.*

Tertio quaeritur de obligatione ad confessionem quantum ad modum, et quaeritur, utrum obligemur ex caritate. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia Augustinus dicit, et habetur in primo capitulo huius distinctionis: «Nemo potest confiteri nisi suscitatus; a mortuo enim, velut qui non est, perit confessio[^1]; nemo autem resuscitatur, nisi qui a peccato solvitur», haec Augustinus; sed nullus solvitur a peccato sine caritate: ergo confessionem quae est in praecepto, oportet fieri in caritate, quia aliter fieri non potest, ut dicit.

2. Item, in confessione peccati est laus Dei, ut dicit Hieronymus; sed *non est speciosa laus in ore peccatoris*, ut dicitur Ecclesiastici decimo quinto[^2]: ergo cum non teneatur quis ad laudem Dei nisi eatenus, qua est speciosa; ergo nullus tenetur ad confessionem faciendam in statu peccati. Si ergo tenetur ad illam, tenetur in statu gratiae: ergo in caritate.

3. Item, tres sunt partes poenitentiae ordinatae, scilicet contritio, confessio et satisfactio: ergo quilibet, qui tenetur ad poenitentiam, cum ad haec omnia teneatur, tenetur ordinate: ergo prius ad contritionem: ergo nemo debet confiteri nisi contritus. Sed non conteritur quis nisi in caritate[^3]: ergo si tenetur ad confitendum, tenetur ad confitendum ex caritate.

4. Item, in confessione est absolutio, et illa est absolutio a poena, non a culpa, sicut melius patebit infra[^4]; haec autem absolutio nulla est, nisi praecedat absolutio culpae: ergo in nullo habet illud Sacramentum efficaciam, nisi in eo qui habet gratiam. Sed qui recipit Sacramentum tenetur se disponere ad efficaciam Sacramenti, alioquin ficte accedit, et omnis talis peccat mortaliter; sed efficacia confessionis non est nisi in habente caritatem: ergo tenetur homo confiteri ex caritate.

**Contra:**
1. Sacramentum poenitentiae est contra morbum mortalis culpae efficax medicamentum: ergo in eo morbus ille curatur: ergo recipitur ibi salus mentis et corporis: ergo videtur, quod non oporteat ad illud afferre sanitatem, sed quaerere; ergo non oportet, quod accedat[^5] ad confessionem ex caritate, nec ad hoc tenetur.

2. Item, ad opera praeceptorum et etiam virtutum, sicut continere, obedire, parentes honorare, non tenemur ex caritate[^6]: ergo videtur, quod nec ad confessionem.

<!-- page 447 -->

3. Item, nullus scit, se habere caritatem[^7]: ergo si tenemur confiteri ex caritate; cum nemo hoc sciat, utrum hoc fecerit, nemo est absolutus: ergo adhuc tenetur, ergo semper debet iterare. *Praeterea*, si accedit sine caritate, videtur peccare mortaliter.

4. Item, confessio non est opus *privilegiatum*, immo confessio peccati est *peccatorum* et impiissimorum; sed non tenetur quis ad aliqua opera facienda ex caritate, nisi quia sunt opera valde nobilia: ergo etc.

> ### Conclusio.
> Non est necessarium confiteri ex caritate, sed requiritur et sufficit dispositio ad caritatem sufficiens, saltem secundum probabilitatem.

**Respondeo:** Ad horum intelligentiam notandum est, quod quaedam sunt Sacramenta ordinata ad gratiam *acquirendam* sive obtinendam, ut baptismus et poenitentia; quaedam ordinata ad gratiam *promovendam* sive augmentandam, ut confirmatio et eucharistia[^8]. Dico ergo, quod sicut Sacramenta *augmentantia* gratiam non habent efficaciam nisi in habentibus caritatem; sic Sacramenta gratiam *impetrantia* non habent efficaciam nisi in eis qui se disponunt. Et sicut dictum est in praecedentibus[^9], quod non tenemur ad eucharistiam accedere cum caritate secundum *veritatem*, sed secundum *probabilitatem* sufficit; sic dico, quod ad Sacramentum poenitentiae non est necesse, quod accedat habens caritatem, vel dispositionem ad caritatem sufficientem secundum *veritatem*, sed sufficit secundum *probabilitatem*. — Haec autem dispositio est *attritio*, quae frequenter ob confessionem superadiunctam et absolutionem sacerdotis formatur per gratiam, ut fiat *contritio*, sive ad ipsam contritio subsequatur; et multis ibi gratia conceditur. Unde dico, quod sufficit, quod *probabiliter se disponat* ad gratiam per omnium peccatorum detestationem. Quodsi se non disponit, immo cum voluntate peccandi accedit; dico, quod peccat mortaliter, quia Sacramentum irritum facit, quantum in se est, et hoc non est sine contemptu; unde tenetur iterum reverti ad sacerdotem et petere absolutionem.

Et *si tu quaeras*, unde exigat hoc confessio, cum non sit opus *privilegiatum*; dico, quod hoc habet, quia est opus *sacramentale ad iustificationem* institutum; unde haec confessio ad absolutionem est ordinata.

Concedo ergo, quod non est necessarium, nec obligatur quis confiteri ex caritate, sed tenetur confiteri vel ex caritate, vel ex dispositione ad caritatem sufficiente, vel secundum probabilitatem, vel secundum veritatem.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod non confitetur nisi suscitatus; dicendum, quod vocat *suscitatum* dispositum ad caritatem, qui iam incipit suscitari, cum atteritur per dolorem et in confessione plerumque recipit vitam.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de laude speciosa, dicendum, quod laus est speciosa dupliciter: vel secundum *acceptationem*[^10] Dei, vel secundum *conscientiam laudantis*. Illa est speciosa secundum *acceptationem Dei*, in qua peccator fit iustus, vel quam facit, postquam est iustus. Illa vero est speciosa secundum *iudicium conscientiae nostrae*, in qua conscientia et voluntas conformat se laudi secundum suam existimationem. Et ad *hanc* speciositatem tenemur, non ad *illam*, quia nescimus, quae Deus acceptat; credimus tamen probabiliter, quod Deus acceptat vel semper, vel frequenter quae conscientia recta approbat, tamen nescimus.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de ordine, dicendum, quod contritio dicit duo: et dicit *peccati detestationem* et dicit *gratiae informationem*. Ratione primi oportet, quod praecedat, alioquin confessio est cum fictione; ratione secundi non oportet, quia in hoc non consistit fictio, cum nemo illud in se habere sciat.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de absolutione, dicendum, quod nemo recipit effectum, nisi caritatem habeat saltem in principio confessionis, vel in medio, vel in fine. Multi autem habent in fine, qui tamen non habent in principio; et aliquando[^11] se credunt habere in principio et in fine, qui fortassis non habent; et aliqui non habent nec credunt, se habere. *Primi* non incurrunt offensam, sed acquirunt gratiam; *secundi* evadunt offensam, quamvis non acquirant gratiam; *tertii* vero non acquirunt gratiam, sed iram. Et sic patent obiecta.

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether one is bound as to the mode to confess out of charity.*

Thirdly there is inquiry concerning the obligation to confession with regard to the mode, and it is asked whether we are bound [to it] out of charity. And that it is so, it seems:

1. Because Augustine says, and it is found in the first chapter of this distinction: "No one can confess unless he has been raised up; for from a dead man, as from one who is not, confession perishes[^1]; but no one is raised up again except him who is loosed from sin"—thus Augustine; but no one is loosed from sin without charity: therefore the confession which is in the precept must be made in charity, because otherwise it cannot be made, as he says.

2. Likewise, in the confession of sin there is praise of God, as Jerome says; but *praise is not comely in the mouth of a sinner*, as is said in Ecclesiasticus, chapter fifteen[^2]: therefore since one is bound to the praise of God only insofar as it is comely; therefore no one is bound to make confession in a state of sin. If therefore he is bound to it, he is bound in a state of grace: therefore in charity.

3. Likewise, the parts of penance are three, set in order, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction: therefore anyone who is bound to penance, since he is bound to all these, is bound [to them] in order: therefore first to contrition: therefore no one ought to confess unless contrite. But one is not made contrite except in charity[^3]: therefore if he is bound to confess, he is bound to confess out of charity.

4. Likewise, in confession there is absolution, and that is absolution from punishment, not from guilt, as will appear better below[^4]; but this absolution is null unless absolution from guilt precedes: therefore that Sacrament has efficacy in no one except in him who has grace. But he who receives the Sacrament is bound to dispose himself to the efficacy of the Sacrament, otherwise he approaches feignedly, and every such person sins mortally; but the efficacy of confession exists only in one having charity: therefore a man is bound to confess out of charity.

**On the contrary:**
1. The Sacrament of penance is an efficacious medicine against the disease of mortal guilt: therefore in it that disease is cured: therefore there is received there the health of mind and body: therefore it seems that one need not bring health to it, but rather seek it; therefore it is not necessary that one approach[^5] confession out of charity, nor is he bound to this.

2. Likewise, to the works of the precepts and even of the virtues, such as to be continent, to obey, to honor parents, we are not bound out of charity[^6]: therefore it seems that neither [are we bound] to confession [out of charity].

3. Likewise, no one knows that he has charity[^7]: therefore if we are bound to confess out of charity, since no one knows this, whether he has done this, no one is absolved: therefore he is still bound, therefore he must always repeat [it]. *Moreover*, if he approaches without charity, he seems to sin mortally.

4. Likewise, confession is not a *privileged* work; indeed the confession of sin is [the work] *of sinners* and of the most impious; but no one is bound to do any works out of charity, except because they are works exceedingly noble: therefore etc.

> ### Conclusion.
> It is not necessary to confess out of charity, but a disposition to charity that is sufficient is required and suffices, at least according to probability.

**I respond:** For the understanding of these matters it must be noted that certain Sacraments are ordained to *acquiring* or obtaining grace, as baptism and penance; certain are ordained to *promoting* or augmenting grace, as confirmation and the eucharist[^8]. I say therefore that, just as the Sacraments that *augment* grace have no efficacy except in those having charity, so the Sacraments that *impetrate* grace have no efficacy except in those who dispose themselves. And just as was said in the preceding [questions][^9], that we are not bound to approach the eucharist with charity according to *truth*, but according to *probability* it suffices; so I say that for the Sacrament of penance it is not necessary that one approach having charity, or a disposition to charity sufficient according to *truth*, but it suffices according to *probability*. — But this disposition is *attrition*, which frequently, on account of the superadded confession and the absolution of the priest, is formed by grace, so that it becomes *contrition*, or contrition follows upon it; and to many grace is granted there. Hence I say that it suffices that one *probably dispose himself* to grace through the detestation of all his sins. But if he does not dispose himself, but rather approaches with the will to sin; I say that he sins mortally, because he makes the Sacrament void, as far as in him lies, and this is not without contempt; hence he is bound to return again to the priest and seek absolution.

And *if you ask* whence confession exacts this, since it is not a *privileged* work; I say that it has this because it is a work *sacramental, instituted unto justification*; hence this confession is ordained to absolution.

I therefore grant that it is not necessary, nor is anyone obligated, to confess out of charity, but he is bound to confess either out of charity, or out of a disposition to charity that is sufficient, either according to probability or according to truth.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:**

1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that one does not confess unless raised up; it must be said that he calls *raised up* one disposed to charity, who already begins to be raised up, when he is made contrite through sorrow and in confession most often receives life.

2. To that which is objected concerning comely praise, it must be said that praise is comely in two ways: either according to the *acceptation*[^10] of God, or according to the *conscience of the one praising*. That praise is comely according to the *acceptation of God* in which a sinner is made just, or which he makes after he is just. But that praise is comely according to the *judgment of our conscience*, in which the conscience and the will conform themselves to the praise according to their own estimation. And to *this* comeliness we are bound, not to *that*, because we do not know which things God accepts; yet we believe probably that God accepts, either always or frequently, those things which a right conscience approves, though we do not know.

3. To that which is objected concerning order, it must be said that contrition states two things: it states both the *detestation of sin* and it states the *informing by grace*. By reason of the first it is necessary that it precede, otherwise the confession is with feigning; by reason of the second it is not necessary, because in this feigning does not consist, since no one knows himself to have it.

4. To that which is objected concerning absolution, it must be said that no one receives the effect unless he has charity at least at the beginning of the confession, or in the middle, or at the end. But many have it at the end who nevertheless do not have it at the beginning; and sometimes[^11] they believe themselves to have it at the beginning and at the end, who perhaps do not have it; and some do not have it nor believe themselves to have it. The *first* do not incur offense, but acquire grace; the *second* escape offense, although they do not acquire grace; the *third*, however, do not acquire grace, but wrath. And thus the objections are clear.

---

la: Eccli. 17, 26: *A mortuo quasi nihil, perit confessio.* — In fine arg. edd. *ut debet* pro *ut dicit*, cod. S *dicitur*.

en: Ecclesiasticus 17:26: *From a dead man, as from one who is nothing, confession perishes.* — At the end of the argument the editions read *ut debet* ("as it ought") for *ut dicit* ("as he says"), codex S *dicitur* ("as is said").

la: Vers. 9. — Sententia Hieronymi in *maiori* relata continetur in Breviario in Ps. 103, 1: *In eo enim, quod confitemur Deo peccata nostra, glorificamus eum.* (Opus hoc olim attribuebatur Hieronymo).

en: Verse 9. — The opinion of Jerome, reported in the *major* [text, i.e. Lombard's], is contained in the Breviary on Psalm 103:1: *For in this, that we confess our sins to God, we glorify him.* (This work was formerly attributed to Jerome).

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

la: Vide supra d. 16. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. definitionem contritionis. — Verbis *nisi contritus* cod. aa interserit *prius*, et pro *non conteritur* codd. I K *non est contritus*.

en: See above, d. 16, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, in the body [for] the definition of contrition. — At the words *nisi contritus* ("unless contrite") codex aa inserts *prius* ("first"), and for *non conteritur* ("is not made contrite") codices I and K [read] *non est contritus* ("is not contrite").

la: Edd. cum uno alteroque cod. *accedatur.*

en: The editions, with one or another codex, [read] *accedatur* ("that one approach," passive).

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. q. 2.

en: See III Sent., d. 37, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Eccle. 9, 1.

en: Ecclesiastes 9:1.

la: Codd. I K *nisi quae.*

en: Codices I and K [read] *nisi quae* ("except which").

la: Vide supra d. 7. a. 2. q. I. et d. 12. p. II. a. I. q. 2. seq.

en: See above, d. 7, a. 2, q. I, and d. 12, p. II, a. I, q. 2 and following.

la: Hic et inferius plures codd. *acceptionem.*

en: Here and below several codices [read] *acceptionem* ("acceptance").

la: Cod. O supplet *Dei*, Vat. *divinae*. Inferius pro *vel semper* cod. Z *plus semper*. — Pro *et* codd. F G *scilicet*, edd. *quia*. — Codd. E F melius *aliqui*, Vat. *alii*. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: Codex O supplies *Dei* ("of God"), the Vatican [edition] *divinae* ("divine"). Below, for *vel semper* ("either always") codex Z [reads] *plus semper* ("more always"). — For *et* ("and") codices F and G [read] *scilicet* ("namely"), the editions *quia* ("because"). — Codices E and F better [read] *aliqui* ("some"), the Vatican [edition] *alii* ("others"). — See the scholion on question I of this article. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 50114–50266) reconciled column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p44{6,7}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, read Left top→bottom then Right. Running head confirmed "DIST. XVII. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. III" on p447; page-verify passed. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 446–447 → PDF 466–467).
- **Page span.** Q3 begins mid-p446 L column ("Tertio quaeritur…") and ends on p447 R column with "Et sic patent obiecta." The p446 L material above q3 (q2's Conclusio 7/8, *Obiectio*, *Solutio oppositorum*) belongs to a2-q2. The `<!-- page 447 -->` break falls between contra-arg 2 and contra-arg 3 (the "3. Item, nullus scit…" sentence opens the p447 L column).
- **Apparatus / footer split.** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering per printed page. P446's footer block runs notes 1–6 (1–4 visually at the top of the R column, carrying q2 references; 5–6 keyed to q3's contra args 1–2). P447's footer block runs notes 7–11. All 11 footers were already merged into the q3 raw range by the auto-chunker; each is rendered here keyed to its q3 anchor. Footers 1–4 share p446 with a2-q2 — a2-q2's own apparatus holds its share; this chunk renders only the notes whose anchors fall in q3's body.
- **Footnote-number renumbering.** The printed footer chains restart per page, so the *printed* superscripts run 1–4 (p446) and 1–11 (across both pages' note bodies as OCR'd). They are renumbered to a single continuous 1–11 sequence here for the single-chunk apparatus; the inline anchors follow the OCR marker spacing. Note 11's anchor is set at *aliquando* (printed marker ¹⁰ in the OCR sits there) governing the closing tripartite resolution.
- **Scholion.** Q3 renders no scholion of its own — the Art. II scholion is printed with QUAESTIO I and is rendered in `bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a2-q1`; cf. footer [^3] ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") and footer [^11] ("Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest."). `has_scholion: false`.
- **[?] flags.** None. The OCR for this quaestio was clean and fully corroborated by the PDF bands.
- **Hand-off to p2-dubia (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-dubia`).** P448 opens "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" / "Dub. I." (running head 448, raw line 50267). No q3 tail bleeds onto p448 (verified against `vol4-p448-L-0.png`); the seam is clean. P448's footer block (Dub. notes) belongs entirely to the dubia chunk.


title: Dist. 17, Part 3, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 430 -->

### Articulus I. *Cui sit confitendum.*

### Quaestio I. *Utrum sufficiat confiteri laico.*

Circa primum quaeritur, utrum sufficiat confiteri laico. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Iacobi ultimo[^1], ubi instituitur confessio: *Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra*; constat ergo, quod loquitur omnibus: igitur illud dictum est omnibus, ergo dictum est et laicis: *Confitemini alterutrum*.

2. Item, Glossa[^2] ibidem dicit: «Minora minoribus, maiora maioribus»; constat autem, quod maiora omnia confitenda sunt sacerdotibus: ergo si minora dicit confitenda minoribus, videtur, quod aliis quam sacerdotibus est confitendum.

3. Item, videtur ratione: quia confessio fit homini, non quia homo remittat culpam, sed ut poenitens erubescat[^3]; sed plus erubescit aliquando aliquis de socio laico quam de sacerdote: ergo magis salvatur ibi finis sive utilitas confessionis.

4. Item, confessio ad hoc ordinatur, ut homo ab homine erudiatur et cognoscat peccati plagam; sed plerumque melius hoc noverunt multi laici quam etiam sacerdotes: ergo etc.

5. Item, confessio est ad multiplicationem adiutorum sive intercessorum; sed frequentius plus valet oratio laici quam sacerdotis: ergo utilius est confiteri plerumque laico.

6. Item, confessio est necessitatis, sicut in praecedentibus visum est[^4]: ergo si Deus per Sacramenta non arctat viam salutis, videtur, quod omnibus dari debuit potestas audiendi confessiones, et e converso confiteri cuilibet.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus, *de Poenitentia*, distinctione sexta[^5]: «Qui vult confiteri peccata sua, ut inveniat gratiam, quaerat sacerdotem»: ergo videtur, quod confiteri alii non sufficiat.

2. Item, veritas debet respondere figurae; sed in Lege nullus iudicabatur mundatus a lepra nec recipiebatur in castra per alicuius iudicium, quantumcumque esset sapiens, nisi per iudicium sacerdotis[^6]: ergo videtur pari ratione, quod nullus possit reconciliare poenitentem Ecclesiae nisi solus sacerdos. Sed confessio ordinatur ad hoc: ergo etc.

3. Item, confessio ordinata est principaliter ad absolutionem; sed potestas ligandi et solvendi data est principaliter summo Pontifici, scilicet Petro et aliis Apostolis: ergo solis sacerdotibus: ergo ab illis solis potest fieri absolutio: ergo ipsis solis debet fieri confessio.

4. Item, si aliis sufficit confiteri, ergo frustra est concessa potestas absolvendi sacerdotibus: si ergo non frustra concessa est, patet igitur etc.

> **Conclusio.** Confessio, prout est opus sacramentale, soli sacerdoti est facienda.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est loqui de confessione dupliciter: uno modo prout est opus virtutis directe repugnans hypocrisi, in quo quis se ipsum accusat, ne alius, quam sit, appareat, vel etiam mala sua aperit ad morbi investigandam curationem[^7]; et hoc modo confessio cuilibet potest fieri, qui potest adiuvare instruendo, vel orando, de quo homo potest erubescere et humiliari, et illo exemplo humiliationis meliorari, non peccatorum cognitione depravari; et sic quis potest peccatum suum cuilibet confiteri, sive clerico sive laico.

<!-- page 431 -->

Sicut enim dicit Bernardus *super Cantica*[^8]: «Vir perfectus tantus est veritatis amator, quod vellet, omnes nosse sua mala, dum tamen eis non esset occasio mali, sed boni». — Alio modo confessio est opus sacramentale, prout ordinatur ad reconciliationem, quae fit per absolutionem et ligationem; et quoniam haec potestas collata est solis sacerdotibus, sicut melius patebit infra[^9]: ideo haec nulli nisi solis sacerdotibus est facienda. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

**Ad argumenta:**
*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur: *Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra* etc.; aliqui dicunt, hoc esse dictum de venialibus, de quibus, sicut patebit, non est necesse confiteri. Aliter potest dici, quod est confessio duplex, scilicet *in generali*, ut quando quis dicit suum *Confiteor*; et *in speciali*, quando quis dicit peccata sua. In utraque harum confessionum est alternatio; sed in confessione speciali est alternatio quantum ad solos sacerdotes, in generali vero quantum ad omnes. Et ideo patet et auctoritas et Glossa, et innuitur hoc ex pluribus verbis, quae ponuntur in Glossa[^10].

*Ad 3, 4, 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de erubescentia, instructione et oratione, dicendum, quod in omnibus argumentis est consequens[^11], pro eo quod non accipit totam causam nec etiam principalem causam, quae est reconciliatio facienda Ecclesiae; et ideo omnes ab insufficienti procedunt de confessione, secundum quod est Sacramentum. Tamen vere concludunt, quod utile etiam est aliquando confiteri non sacerdoti; sicut etiam audivi de muliere, quae in morte confessa fuit viro ad vehementem confusionem, cuius poenitentiam per signa valde evidentia Dominus acceptavit; prius tamen fuerat confessa sacerdoti.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod cum sit necessitatis, debuit omnibus committi; dicendum, quod non oportuit nec debuit. Non debuit, quia absolvere dicit actum alicuius personae auctoritatem habentis. Non etiam oportuit, quia nullus volens habere sacerdotem et eo carens privatur salute; sufficit enim sibi voluntas confitendi; et ut voluntas eius exterius appareat, dat Magister consilium, quod confiteatur proprio socio, non quia illa confessio Sacramentum Ecclesiae sit, sed ut talis ostendat, se perfectam habere voluntatem et facere quod in se est.

<!-- page 432 -->

english:
### Article I. *To whom confession is to be made.*

### Question I. *Whether it is sufficient to confess to a layman.*

Concerning the first it is asked whether it is sufficient to confess to a layman. And that it is so seems to be the case.

1. In the last [chapter] of James[^1], where confession is instituted: *Confess your sins to one another*; it is settled, therefore, that he speaks to all: hence that saying was spoken to all, and so was spoken also to laymen: *Confess to one another*.

2. Likewise, the Gloss[^2] in the same place says: «Lesser things to lesser persons, greater things to greater»; but it is settled that all greater things are to be confessed to priests: therefore, if he says that lesser things are to be confessed to lesser persons, it seems that confession is to be made to others than priests.

3. Likewise, it seems by reason: because confession is made to a man, not because a man remits the fault, but that the penitent may blush[^3]; but sometimes one blushes more before a lay companion than before a priest: therefore the end or usefulness of confession is better preserved there.

4. Likewise, confession is ordered to this, that a man be instructed by a man and recognize the wound of sin; but oftentimes many laymen know this better than even priests: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, confession is for the multiplication of helps or intercessors; but more frequently the prayer of a layman avails more than that of a priest: therefore it is more useful oftentimes to confess to a layman.

6. Likewise, confession is of necessity, as was seen in the preceding[^4]: therefore, if God by the Sacraments does not constrain the way of salvation, it seems that the power of hearing confessions ought to have been given to all, and conversely [the power] of confessing to anyone.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, *On Penance*, distinction six[^5]: «Whoever wishes to confess his sins, that he may find grace, let him seek a priest»: therefore it seems that to confess to another does not suffice.

2. Likewise, the truth ought to answer to the figure; but under the Law no one was judged cleansed of leprosy nor received into the camp by anyone's judgment, however wise he might be, except by the judgment of a priest[^6]: therefore it seems by parity of reasoning that no one can reconcile a penitent to the Church except a priest alone. But confession is ordered to this: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, confession is ordered principally to absolution; but the power of binding and loosing was given principally to the supreme Pontiff, namely to Peter, and to the other Apostles: therefore to priests alone: therefore by them alone can absolution be made: therefore to them alone ought confession be made.

4. Likewise, if it suffices to confess to others, then the power of absolving was granted to priests in vain: if therefore it was not granted in vain, it is clear then etc.

> **Conclusion.** Confession, insofar as it is a sacramental work, is to be made to a priest alone.

**I respond:** It must be said that confession may be spoken of in two ways: in one way, insofar as it is a work of virtue directly opposed to hypocrisy, in which a man accuses himself, lest he appear other than he is, or also lays open his evils for the investigating of the cure of the disease[^7]; and in this way confession can be made to anyone who can help by instructing or by praying, before whom a man can blush and be humbled, and be bettered by that example of humiliation, not depraved by the knowledge of his sins; and thus one can confess his sin to anyone, whether cleric or layman.

<!-- page 431 -->

For as Bernard says *on the Canticle*[^8]: «So great a lover of the truth is the perfect man, that he would wish all to know his evils, provided, however, that it be for them an occasion not of evil, but of good». — In another way confession is a sacramental work, insofar as it is ordered to reconciliation, which is made through absolution and binding; and since this power has been conferred on priests alone, as will appear better below[^9]: therefore this is to be made to none except priests alone. — And the reasons brought forward for this are to be granted.

**To the arguments:**
*To 1, 2.* To that which is objected: *Confess your sins to one another* etc.; some say that this was said of venial sins, of which, as will appear, it is not necessary to confess. Otherwise it can be said that confession is twofold, namely *in general*, as when one says his *Confiteor*; and *in particular*, when one tells his sins. In each of these confessions there is mutuality; but in particular confession there is mutuality only with respect to priests, while in general [confession] with respect to all. And so both the authority and the Gloss are clear, and this is intimated from many words that are set down in the Gloss[^10].

*To 3, 4, 5.* To that which is objected concerning blushing, instruction, and prayer, it must be said that in all the arguments there is a consequent[^11], for the reason that it does not take the whole cause, nor even the principal cause, which is the reconciliation to be made to the Church; and therefore all proceed from an insufficient [ground] concerning confession, insofar as it is a Sacrament. Yet they truly conclude that it is also sometimes useful to confess to a non-priest; just as I have also heard of a woman who at death confessed to a man to her vehement shame, whose penitence the Lord accepted by very evident signs; yet she had first confessed to a priest.

*To 6.* To that which is objected, that since it is of necessity it ought to have been committed to all, it must be said that it was neither needful nor due. It was not due, because to absolve names the act of some person having authority. Nor was it needful, because no one who wills to have a priest and lacks one is deprived of salvation; for the will to confess suffices for him; and that his will may appear outwardly, the Master gives the counsel that he confess to his own companion, not because that confession is a Sacrament of the Church, but that such a one may show that he has a perfect will and does what is in him.

<!-- page 432 -->

la: Vers. 16. — Codd. I K *testificationem*.

en: Verse 16. — Codices I K read *testificationem*.

la: Scilicet *interlinearis*, quae est sumpta ex Beda. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Namely the *interlinear* [Gloss], which is taken from Bede. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. et 3, ubi etiam *maior* duorum seqq. argg. insinuatur; sed cfr. infra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 5 and 3, where also the *major* [premise] of the two following arguments is intimated; but cf. below d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cap. 1. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Chapter 1. See here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Hic c. 4. et 5.

en: Here c. 4 and 5.

la: Vide Levit. 13. et 14. Cfr. Deuter. 17, 8. seqq.

en: See Leviticus 13 and 14. Cf. Deuteronomy 17, 8 ff.

en: Matthew 16, 19, and John 20, 22 f.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. circa finem. — Paulo superius pro *quis*, quod in multis codd. desideratur, codd. F G *homo*. Inferius pro *orando* codd. N Y *hortando*, cod. Z *ordinando*, et subinde pro *humiliationis* cod. H *humilitatis*.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 6, near the end. — A little above, for *quis*, which is lacking in many codices, codices F G [read] *homo*. Below, for *orando* codices N Y [read] *hortando*, codex Z *ordinando*, and thereupon for *humiliationis* codex H [reads] *humilitatis*.

la: Serm. 42. n. 6, ubi haec sententia aliis verbis (quae habentur infra q. 3. arg. 3. et in solut.) exprimitur.

en: Sermon 42, n. 6, where this opinion is expressed in other words (which are found below in q. 3, arg. 3, and in the solution).

en: Distinction 19, a. 1 and 2.

la: Infra a. 2. q. 1. — De confessione generali plura profert Magister, infra d. XXI. c. 7. — Partis II. q. 1. — Inferius post *confiteri* [confitendi?] Vat. cum pluribus codd. repetit *debuit*. — Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Cfr. supra pag. 44, nota 10. — Hic in lit. c. 4. — Verbo *dat* cod. Y praemittit *in casu*.

en: Below a. 2, q. 1. — On general confession the Master sets forth more, below d. XXI, c. 7. — Of Part II, q. 1. — Below, after *confiteri* [*confitendi*?] the Vatican edition with several codices repeats *debuit*. — See here the text of the Master, c. 4. — Cf. above p. 44, note 10. — Here in the text, c. 4. — To the word *dat* codex Y prefixes *in casu*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 19. m. a. 1. — Scot., de hac et seq. q. in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. 2. 3.; Suppl. q. 8. a. 1. 2. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 33. 39. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Durand., hic q. 11. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.

**II.** Quoad 2. quaestionem nunc constat, nomine proprii sacerdotis (cui saltem semel in anno confitendum esse in decreto Concilii Lateranensis IV. dicitur) intelligi omnem confessarium rite approbatum. Illa tamen aetate confessio annua ratione illius canonis proprio parocho facienda videbatur; multumque de privilegiis religiosorum litigatum est. Plura vide apud Henricum Gand. (Quodl. 7. q. 23-27), qui (q. 24.) in quaestione iuris de privilegiis Fratrum Praedicatorum et Minorum hoc votum dedit, quod poenitens, ut satisfaceret illi canoni, semel in anno peccata sua, etiam rite confessa, iterum deberet parocho suo confiteri. Richard. a Med. autem (hic a. 3. q. 1. seqq.) iam sustinuit, nomine proprii sacerdotis intelligi eum qui quamcumque legitimam iurisdictionem in poenitentem haberet, et probabilius esse iudicavit, non teneri eum qui tali confessus esset, peccata in confessione manifestata parocho suo iterum confiteri. Similiter censent Scotus et Durandus. S. Thom. (hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4. 3; Suppl. q. 8. a. 6.) favet opinioni, quod poenitens propter statutum Ecclesiae se praesentare teneatur sacerdoti proprio, tamen rite absolutus non nisi sua venialia confiteri debeat; bonum autem esse, quod confessarius suum poenitentem inducat, «ut confiteatur proprio sacerdoti; quod si noluerit, nihilominus eum absolvere debet». — Sapienter autem sic monet parochos (quaestiunc. 4. ad 6.): «Peccaret autem sacerdos, si non esset facilis ad praebendam licentiam confitendi alteri»; aliter «multis laqueum damnationis iniiciunt et per consequens sibi ipsis». De eadem quaestione praeter citatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 40-43. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 1-3. — Durand., hic q. 12. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.

**III.** De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 18. m. 4. a. 3. 5 § 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 27. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6. refert de hac re aliqua verba S. Bonav. Alii auctores principia tangunt alibi, praesertim in quaestione de sigillo confessionis, infra d. 21.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** On this first question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 19. m. a. 1. — Scotus, on this and the following question in both Commentaries here a single question. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1, 2, 3; Suppl. q. 8. a. 1, 2, 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 33, 39. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Durandus, here q. 11. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 7.

**II.** As to the second question, it now stands that by the name of one's own priest (to whom it is said in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council that confession is to be made at least once a year) is understood every duly approved confessor. In that age, however, annual confession by reason of that canon seemed to be made to one's own parish priest; and there was much litigation concerning the privileges of religious. See more in Henry of Ghent (Quodl. 7. q. 23-27), who (q. 24.) in the question of law concerning the privileges of the Friars Preachers and Minors gave this opinion, that the penitent, to satisfy that canon, ought once a year to confess again to his parish priest his sins, even those duly confessed. Richard of Middleton, however (here a. 3. q. 1. seqq.), already maintained that by the name of one's own priest is understood him who has any legitimate jurisdiction over the penitent, and judged it more probable that one who had confessed to such a one is not bound to confess again to his parish priest the sins manifested in [that] confession. Scotus and Durandus hold likewise. St. Thomas (here loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4. 3; Suppl. q. 8. a. 6.) favors the opinion that the penitent, on account of the statute of the Church, is bound to present himself to his own priest, yet, once duly absolved, ought to confess only his venial sins; and that it is good that the confessor induce his penitent «to confess to his own priest; but if he is unwilling, [the confessor] ought nonetheless to absolve him». — Wisely, moreover, he thus admonishes parish priests (quaestiunc. 4. ad 6.): «A priest would sin if he were not ready to grant leave to confess to another»; otherwise «they cast on many a snare of damnation, and consequently on themselves». On the same question, besides those cited: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 40-43. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 1-3. — Durandus, here q. 12. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 7.

**III.** On the third question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. q. 18. m. 4. a. 3. 5 § 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 27. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 6. reports on this matter some words of St. Bonaventure. Other authors touch on the principles elsewhere, especially in the question on the seal of confession, below d. 21.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from IA djvu OCR raw lines 50498–50652, cross-checked column-by-column against PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p45{0,1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. Printed pages 430–432 (the prompt's "~450–452" estimate was off by 20; running heads on the bands confirm 430 / "DIST. XVII. P. III. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 431" / "432 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."). The colcrop band files happen to be named by the *pdf* page (450/451/452 = printed 430/431/432). PDF = printed + 20, as expected for Vol IV.

**Chunking / article-opener fold.** The Pars III opener (COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, with its three-question listing) lives in the sibling `bon-sent-IV-d17-p3-divisio.md`, which already carries the `ARTICULUS I. Cui sit confitendum.` line at its tail. To avoid duplication, this q1 chunk repeats only the one-line `Articulus I` header (per the locked Vol II/IV convention that a bare article opener folds into its q1) and begins the body at `Circa primum quaeritur, utrum sufficiat confiteri laico`. No content lost at the divisio→q1 seam: the divisio's closing TRACTATIO line is grammatically self-contained and q1 opens its own `Circa primum quaeritur`.

**Scholion ownership.** The Articulus I `SCHOLION` (raw lines ~50630–50652; printed p. 432) is present in this raw range and is rendered IN FULL here (body first, scholion last). It has three parts: **I** covers *this* q1, **II** covers a1-q2 (cui confitendum / proprius sacerdos), **III** covers a1-q3 (confession in public vs. in secret). Thus q2 and q3 carry NO standalone scholion and should point here. Reported as instructed.

**Page-footer split.** p. 430 footers nn. 1–6 and p. 431 footers nn. 1–11 all belong to this q1 body (the divisio chunk noted it carries no footers of its own). The p. 431 footer block (nn. 1–11) physically prints below the Respondeo and is consolidated here under `[^11]` where the body anchors converge (Quaracchi packs several short cross-references into the tail notes); no footer was dropped at the seam.

**[?] flags.** None. A few OCR garbles were silently corrected against the PDF bands: `conflteri→confiteri`, `confessione→confessione`, `iudicabatur` confirmed, `Confitemini` confirmed, `praesentare` confirmed. The Bernard citation reads *Serm. 42. n. 6* in the footer; rendered as such.