Whether Christ made satisfaction only for original sin.
Whether Christ made satisfaction only for original sin.
Furthermore, Christ made satisfaction not only for original sin but also for the actual sins of human beings, yet some of the Scholastics deny this and claim that we ourselves must make satisfaction for actual sins. Thomas (Opuscul. 58, de sacram. altaris, ch. 1): “Just as Christ’s body on the altar was once offered on the cross for original sin, so it is offered continually for our daily transgressions.”
Bonaventure (Sent., 3, dist. 20, q. 3): “A human being can make satisfaction for his own actual sin but not for his original sin. For no one could make satisfaction for original sin except Christ, God and man. In regard to actual sin, a pure man, helped by grace, can make satisfaction, but only a semicomplete satisfaction which receives supplement and fulfillment from Christ’s Passion.”
William of Auxerre (Sent., 3, dist. 12): “If Abraham and the other ancient fathers had sought eternal life immediately after their deaths, which eternal life they had earned worthily [ex condigno], they would have been told: ‘Pay back what you owe,’ namely, satisfaction for original sin. For no pure man could make satisfaction [for this]; therefore Christ’s coming was necessary.”
Ambrosius Catharinus, bishop of Conza, embraces the opinion of these and writes: “Christ’s Passion made satisfaction for original sin and for actual sins which occur before Baptism. But in the Mass, Christ is offered for sins following Baptism and first justification.”
** Augsburg Conf. (the article on the abuse of the Mass): “An opinion was added which has increased private Masses infinitely, namely, that Christ made satisfaction for original sin with His suffering and instituted the Mass in which an oblation would be made for our daily sins, both mortal and venial.”1 Bellarmine (Judic. de libro Concord., mendac. 18) says that “this is a lie.” And yet in the very same place he cites the Opusculum of Thomas Aquinas, who states this clearly (ch. 1) and in the same place teaches: “The sacrifice of the cross, offered once, is sufficient for original sin since original sin is not repeated. But for actual sins, which are committed quite often, the daily remedy of the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted, as well as other things which help obtain from God that He will look kindly upon sinners, inspire in them a yearning for conversion, and incline them to seek and obtain justification.” Gregorius de Valentia ([In Thom.,] vol. 4, disp. 7, q. 14, point 6): “Since there are two kinds of sin, actual and original, there is no Catholic who does not confess that the Son of God came to wipe away both kinds.” But he soon forgets his own words and adds in the same chapter: “Christ came especially for original sin”; and he not only quotes but also approves the Glossa ordinaria, which understands the “sin” in John’s statement “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29] to be original sin. **
Akin to this is what Andreas Vega contends (In Concil. Trid., 13, ch. 36), that “satisfaction for fault is made by us.” Ruardus Tapperus argues (Explic. articuli 6. Lovaniensium): “Man can make satisfaction to God for fault and eternal punishment through certain actions which in a natural order follow an infusion of ingratiating grace and which precede the remission of sins.” To support this opinion he cites Thomas (Sent., 4, dist. 15, q. 1, art. 2); in fact, he goes even further than that to write (vol. 1, fol. 141): “Christ’s merit does not deserve the title of perfect satisfaction.”