Whether contrition is a cause of the remission of sins.
Whether contrition is a cause of the remission of sins.
§ 85. The seventh controversy is “whether contrition is a cause of the remission of sins,” which Bellarmine affirms (ch. 12).
We respond. (1) The Scholastics do not agree in their explanation of this question. Some want contrition to be only a preparation for the remission of sins, but most claim that it is congruous merit, such as Lombard (Sentent., 2, dist. 27), Thomas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Durandus, etc., whose opinion seems to be more true and more in harmony with the Scriptures and the fathers than that of Bellarmine. Richard (Sent., 4, dist. 17, art. 1, q. 7) claims that it is worthy merit [meritum de condigno]: “Through contrition the soul earns the forgiveness of mortal sins by merit if some motive for contrition precedes it in the natural order.” The Catech. Trident. (p. 290): “From this, one may know the power of true contrition: that by its benefit we immediately receive pardon for all our sins.”
** Franciscus Victoria (Relect. 1, De potest. eccles.): “Men who are otherwise keen and learned” (Scholastics and especially Scotists) “sin twice in this argument and are in error because they have the wrong idea about contrition. First, they think that contrition is so sufficient for the remission of sins that once contrition has taken place the remission [of sins] and grace are due as if by justice. For this reason it also happens that they place congruous merit as the first grace, contrary to the apostle Paul. They do not consider that, regardless of the preparation which the sinner has, it is unnecessary to imagine any merit except pure divine mercy since there is such great generosity in the granting of grace and sins are forgiven so freely, just as grace was given to Adam in his first condition and, in fact, more. Contrition is no more merit for grace and the remission of sins than good works are merit for predestination. This was a great part of the Pelagian error, if I know anything at all.” **
Petrus à Soto takes a different view and merely asserts that the Catholic Church believes that “contrition does not earn the remission of sins but is a preparation [dispositio] necessary for us to obtain true righteousness through it.” He even says, “Our contrition makes God kindly disposed toward us, is the merit of eternal life, and earns the complete remission of sins.”
(2) Contrition is not the merit for the forgiveness of sins since sins are forgiven freely, and no good work is meritorious in the proper sense, as will be shown in its own place [§§ 121, 126; On Good Works (Commonplace XX), §§ 87–133]. It is not the means of forgiveness since contrition is from the Law; but now, we are justified by faith without the works of the Law, and it lacks the ability to grasp Christ.
Bellarmine objects, saying that we are justified freely even though we are justified by the merit of contrition since contrition itself is a gift of God and is not worthy merit but congruous merit. This will be discussed more fully in the article On Justification [Commonplace XIX, § 155]. Here we shall repeat the apostle’s contrast: “If it is from grace, then it is no longer from works” (Rom. 11:6). “Blessed is that man to whom God imputes righteousness without works” (Rom. 4:6).
The counterargument—that Christ earned this with His own contrition in order that our contrition might also expiate sin, and that for this reason our contrition takes nothing away from Christ’s merit—is of the same importance and weight. What must be thought about this matter shall be explained in its own place [On Good Works (Commonplace XX), § 96; cf. above, § 61, and below, §§ 120–21]. Here we repeat a passage from the Apol. Confess. Wirteberg. (ch. De contrit., p. 514):
Christ did not die for this purpose, use, and end: that our good works receive the meritorious dignity of atoning for sins, but rather for the expiation before God of our evil works, which the severity of God’s judgment finds not only in our sins but even in our good works themselves. Indeed, Christ did not suffer so that our good works should atone for sins, but rather He suffered for sins. I repeat: He suffered for sins so that they should be expiated not because of our actions or sufferings but because of the actions and passions of Christ alone. Because the Passion or merit of Christ is not recognized from contrition or the admission of sin but only by faith through the Gospel of Christ, we say that we become partakers of Christ’s propitiation.
And p. 515:
Because the Holy Spirit leaves good works faulty and imperfect in people due to the flesh, will the Son of God now infuse them with such majesty that they will placate God’s wrath? So great is the seriousness of divine wrath that the whole world trembles before it. Now, do you suppose that this trembling of every creature can be calmed by human works?
(3) If contrition were the cause of the remission of sins, once contrition happened the remission of sins would happen. But now, once contrition has happened, the forgiveness of sins does not immediately happen since very often there are deeper griefs over committed sins in those who in their desperation rush into destruction than in the elect and in those experiencing salutary repentance.
(4) Nevertheless contrition is necessary in true and salutary repentance, as we demonstrated in its own place [§ 41]. Thus some people argue that contrition is the cause “without which not” [sine qua non] of the remission of sins since no remission of sins occurs without contrition. But it is a cause “without which not” which does not act in effecting that which happens. Rather, it is present in such a way that without it the effect does not occur. Nevertheless it is not truly and properly the cause.
Those are the points which must be understood rightly and carefully, lest the free forgiveness of sins be overturned.
§ 86. How does Bellarmine prove that contrition is the efficient cause and the merit of righteousness for the remission of sins? He produces passages of Scripture, testimonies of the fathers, and the authority of reason. Regarding the passages of Scripture, he boasts that they are very clear and that he still has not read any response of our people to their testimonies.