Statements of the fathers for establishing the sacrament of penance.
Statements of the fathers for establishing the sacrament of penance.
§ 32. As concerns the statements of the fathers which Bellarmine cites for his opinion, nothing is concluded from them but that they are comparing Baptism and repentance with each other. But from this it does not yet follow that penance is also a sacrament properly so called as is Baptism, for there is another explanation for this comparison, namely: as in Baptism the pardoning of all sins is given and sealed, so also, because Baptism cannot be repeated and administered again to those who have fallen into sin, God has instituted the medicine of repentance through which we are again reconciled to God and receive the forgiveness of sins. The statements which are offered from Lombard and the Scholastics have very little strength.
Bellarmine adds that it cannot be that the entire church was making a very serious mistake for so many hundreds of years. To this we respond with the words of Ignatius (Letter 6): “To us, Christ” (and His Word, sounding in the Scriptures) “is the ancient things [ἀρχεῖα].” Tertullian (De veland. virgin., p. 490): “No one can allege anything [praescribere] against the truth—not space of time nor the support of persons nor the privilege of regions.”
It is very clear from the Catalogus testium veritatis, from the Centenarii of Wolf, and from other writings that all times of the church had those who taught that we must seek the free forgiveness of sins in Christ alone and not in our own works and satisfactions. Whether the church can err, and to what extent it can err, will be discussed in its own place [On the Church (Commonplace XXV), §§ 104–25].
What Bellarmine (De poenit., bk. 1, chs. 10–12) argues about whether the sacrament of penance is different from the sacrament of Baptism can be understood correctly from earlier points, but especially from those which are discussed in the commonplace On Baptism [Commonplace XXIII].
1 Poenitentia can be translated with two words in English: “repentance” or “penance.” Here, when the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance is being discussed, poenitentia has been translated “penance.” When the biblical concept of repentance as a “turning from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18) is being discussed, it has been translated as “repentance.”
2 On the difference between “contrition” and “attrition” in Roman Catholic theology, see below, On Repentance (Commonplace XVIII), § 96.
3 See above, p. 36 n. 2.
4 On “subordinates,” see above, p. 32 n. 8.
5 Read efficiendam with Cotta instead of officiendam.
6 I.e., Ap XIII.
7 Ap XIII 3–4 (cf. Concordia, 184).
8 Ap XIII 16 (cf. Concordia, 185).
9 On “material,” see above, p. 14 n. 1. On “form,” see above, p. 48 n. 1.
10 The page to which Gerhard refers includes the text of Ap XIII 12–17 (cf. Concordia, 185–86).
11 Read videtur with Cotta instead of dicitur.
12 toto genere, imo, quod dici solet, toto coelo discrepantes, that is, categorically and completely different.
13 In scholastic thought, a habit [habitus] (or disposition) is an inclination of a rational being toward doing certain acts. A habit does not compel the doer, but makes him more ready and able to do certain acts. Here, an “infused habit” is a gift given by God. An “acquired habit,” on the other hand, comes from repeated human actions, and hence it derives from free choice. For example, one can acquire the habit of playing the guitar by much practice.
14 actus secundus, the actual operation of a thing. For example: “Priscian, when exercising his grammatical knowledge, is a grammarian in secondary actuality.” “Primary actuality,” on the other hand, refers to a power or potential that is not currently actualized.
15 The “middle term” in a syllogism appears in both the major and minor premises. For example, in the syllogism “All X is Y, but all Y is Z; therefore all X is Z,” the middle term is Y. Bellarmine’s major premise was that the Lord remitted the sins of the paralytic (Matthew 9) and of the Magdalene (Luke 7) without the imposition of hands. Bellarmine’s minor premise was a false presupposition: that this remission was sacramental. And his conclusion was that the imposition of hands does not belong to the essence of the sacrament of penance. If Bellarmine had not been presupposing that the remission in Matthew 9 and Luke 7 was sacramental, then his middle term (remitting the sins of the paralytic and of the Magdalene) would have nothing to do with the conclusion, yet in this place Bellarmine was arguing for the contrary, that they did prove his conclusion.